Factors affecting the use of CALL by EFL female faculty members in Saudi higher education
3. The Relationship between Saudi EFL College-Level Students’ Use of Reading Strategies and
-
Upload
mohammad-nurul-alam -
Category
Documents
-
view
207 -
download
1
Transcript of 3. The Relationship between Saudi EFL College-Level Students’ Use of Reading Strategies and
The Relationship between Saudi EFL College-Level Students’ Use of Reading Strategies and
Their EFL Reading Comprehension
A dissertation presented to
the faculty of
the College of Education of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Hashem A. Alsamadani
March 2009
© 2008 Hashem A. Alsamadani. All Rights Reserved
2
This dissertation titled
The Relationship between Saudi EFL College-Level Students’ Use of Reading Strategies and
Their EFL Reading Comprehension
by
HASHEM A. ALSAMADANI
has been approved for
the Department of Teacher Education
and the College of Education by
William E. Smith
Associate Professor of Teacher Education
Renée A. Middleton
Dean, College of Education
3
ABSTRACT
ALSAMADANI, HASHEM A., Ph.D., March 2009, Curriculum and Instruction,
Reading Arts and Language Arts Education. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SAUDI
EFL COLLEGE-LEVEL STUDENTS’ USE OF READING STRATEGIES AND
THEIR EFL READING COMPREHENSION (173 pp.)
Director of Dissertation: William E. Smith
Reading is a process that requires effort on the readers’ parts if they want to
understand what they are reading. A considerable amount of research has been devoted to
understanding the processes that contribute to reading comprehension. As part of that
research, this study was conducted to explore Saudi students’ use of reading strategies
and their effect on students’ reading comprehension. The study employed both
quantitative and qualitative methods to obtain information about Saudi students’
perceived use of reading strategies as well as their comprehension level.
The results showed that EFL learners in Saudi Arabia showed significantly more
perceived use of planning strategies than attending strategies and evaluating strategies.
They also perceived the environment as the most important factor affecting their reading
comprehension. The results of the study showed no significant relationship between
Saudi EFL learners comprehension level and their use of reading strategies. In fact, Saudi
students perceived other factors such as prior knowledge (appropriate schemata),
enthusiasm for reading, time on task, purpose for reading, and vocabulary as having
much effective contribution to their final comprehension.
4
Gender differences favoring female learners were evident in almost all analyses
conducted in the current study. Significant differences were found favoring female
students in overall strategy use, comprehension level, and the use of evaluating strategies.
Suggestions are made that EFL educators in Saudi Arabia focus on increasing the
efficiency of reading strategies when planning reading curriculum and instruction. The
study presents some recommendations that are related to reading materials, the ways
these materials are presented in the classroom, and reading strategy instruction. The study
also recommends that reading instruction should supplement students with sufficient and
balanced extensive reading activities.
Approved: _____________________________________________________________
William E. Smith
Associate Professor of Teacher Education
5
To the ones who stayed up nights so I could sleep comfortably; to the ones who suffered
their whole lives to give me the chance to prove and improve myself; to the ones who
nurtured in me the love for learning, To my parents: Ahmed Mazawid and Ghaliah
Alayafi.
To You
To my wife, Rahma, for her great support, encouragements, and sacrifices throughout
this process. Thank you, Rahma, for your love, care, and understanding.
To the joy and true meaning of my life, to my three shining stars: Ahmed, Ziad, Hazim,
and to the expected boy/girl. You all are the true blessing I am blessed with in this life;
You all are my hope in bright future.
I dedicate this endeavor to you, so you might pursue higher than it in your life.
6
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all I thank God (Allah) for giving me the strength and perseverance during
this process. I offer sincere thanks to my committee members, whose support, guidance,
and encouragement helped me throughout the dissertation process. I appreciate the hours
of reading, editing, and meetings on my behalf. Through their work, I have gained a
greater understanding of the dedication and service linked with a career in academia.
I wish to begin by thanking my advisor, Dr. William Smith. Dr. Smith, thank you
for the wisdom, understanding, and compassion that you have imparted to me and my
ideas. You have offered guidance, support, and unwavering patience throughout this
process.
I wish to thank Dr. Scott Jarvis, whose time and advice were always appreciated.
He patiently revised each chapter of this dissertation and provided invaluable direction
and support throughout the dissertation process. I have been blessed to have such a
brilliant mentor to help me navigate the dissertation process.
I wish to thank Dr. Ginger Weade for her enthusiasm for my topic. Her
thoughtful feedback on my proposal helped to shape and strengthen my dissertation. I
thank Dr. George Johanson, who had the amazing ability to sense my concerns and
calmly ease my doubts. Dr. Johanson has committed an enormous amount of time in
order to challenge me and support me, providing invaluable assistance in thinking
through issues of data collection and with data analysis.
My committee: I am so grateful to each of you for the time and effort invested in
helping me develop into the individual I have become.
7
Finally, I thank my family in Saudi Arabia for supporting me through this
process. Their phone calls and e-mails made living far away from home bearable. I am
eternally thankful for the love and support I have received from my ever-patient and
supportive wife, Rahma Alsamadani. She provided me with care, encouragement, and
with time to work. I simply could not have done this without them.
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 6
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 11
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................... 13
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 13 English as a Foreign/Second Language (EFL/ESL) Reading Strategies ...................... 14 Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 16 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 19 The Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 20 Variables of the Study ................................................................................................... 22 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 22 Definition of Terms....................................................................................................... 24 Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER TWO .............................................................................................................. 28
Literature Review.............................................................................................................. 28 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 28 Models of Reading ........................................................................................................ 29 The Interactive Model ................................................................................................... 38 Reading Strategies ........................................................................................................ 41 Reading Strategies Studies in Saudi Arabia .................................................................. 57 Self-Regulation ............................................................................................................. 62 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 65
CHAPTER THREE .......................................................................................................... 67
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 67 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 67 Research Design ............................................................................................................ 68 Operational Definition of the Variables ........................................................................ 69 The Setting of the Study ............................................................................................... 71 Teaching English Language in Saudi Arabia ................................................................ 72
9
Current Classroom Reading Practices in Saudi Arabia ................................................ 72 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 74 The Reading Comprehension Test ................................................................................ 81 Interview ....................................................................................................................... 81 Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 82 Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................. 86
CHAPTER FOUR ............................................................................................................. 88
Results ............................................................................................................................... 88 Reliability of the Instrument ......................................................................................... 88 Validity of the Instrument ............................................................................................. 89 Descriptive Statistics for Factors .................................................................................. 90 Assumptions of Multiple Regression Analysis ............................................................. 92 Test for Normality, Linearity, Homoscedasticity, and Independence of Residuals ..... 95 First Research Question ................................................................................................ 98 Second Research Question .......................................................................................... 100 Third Research Question............................................................................................. 102 Additional Findings .................................................................................................... 105 Gender and Comprehension Level .............................................................................. 108 Gender and Reading Strategies ................................................................................... 109 Gender and Self-Regulation ........................................................................................ 110 Qualitative Data on Self-regulation ............................................................................ 111 Summary of Major Findings ....................................................................................... 112
CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................ 115
Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations ............................................................ 115 Summary of the Study and Discussion of Findings .................................................... 115 Discussion of Additional Findings.............................................................................. 123 Implications for Reading Instruction in Saudi Arabia ................................................ 124 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 126 Limitations of the study .............................................................................................. 127 Recommendations for Further Study .......................................................................... 128
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 130
APPENDIX A: READING COMPREHENSION TEST ............................................... 147
APPENDIX B: MODEL ANSWERS ............................................................................. 150
APPENDIX C : A SAMPLE OF INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION ............................ 151
10
APPENDIX D : READING STRATEGIES QUESTIONNAIRE (RSQ) ...................... 155
APPENDIX E : A SAMPLE OF PERMISSION REQUEST LETTER ......................... 161
APPENDIX F : IRB APPROVAL .................................................................................. 162
APPENDIX G : SCREEPLOT ....................................................................................... 163
APPENDIX H: ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX ................................................. 164
APPENDIX I : RESIDUAL STATISTICS (READING STRATEGIES TYPES) ........ 166
APPENDIX J : ITEMS DESCRIPTIVES ...................................................................... 167
APPENDIX K : SCATTER PLOT OF REGRESSION STANDARDIZED PREDICTED VALUES AGAINST REGRESSION STANDARDIZED RESIDUALS (SELF-REGULATION FACETS).............................................................................................. 170
APPENDIX L : NORMAL P-P PLOT (SELF-REGULATION FACETS). ................. 171
APPENDIX M : RESIDUAL STATISTICS (SELF-REULATION FACETS) ............. 172
APPENDIX N : TOLERANCE AND VIF FOR REGRESSION FACTORS (SELF-REGULATION) ............................................................................................................. 173
11
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 : Demographic characteristics of the participants in the pilot study………..…...79
Table 2 : Descriptive statistics for reading strategies types…………….………………..90
Table 3 : Divariate correlation among the three types of reading strategies and overall
strategy use…………………………………………………………….……...….91
Table 4 : distribution of the sample according to their reading comprehension test
scores………………………………………………………………………….….92
Table 5 : tolerance and vif for regression factors ……………………...…………….….94
Table 6 : standard regression model summary…………………………………………101
Table 7 : descriptive statistics for self-regulation facets…………………………….….106
Table 8 : bivariate correlation among the five facets of self-regulation and overall
strategy use………………..………………………….…..………..............……107
Table 9 : gender differences in means of reading comprehension ……..........................109
Table 10 :gender differences in means of strategy use ……….…………..……………110
12
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: scatter plot of regression standardized predicted values against regression
standardized residuals (reading strategies types)…………………………….96
Figure 2: normal p-p plot ..............................................................................................96
13
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Reading plays a crucial role in our lives. It is so much a part of everyday living
that one can hardly imagine life without it. Reading is also uniquely individual and
flexible. In the age of the Internet and information revolution, reading retains its
importance as an essential skill for learners of any language. For most of them, it is the
most important skill to master in order to ensure success in learning (Alderson, 1984).
However, an old question remains incompletely answered by reading theorists. It is the
question about the processes that take place, either inside our brains or in actual eye
movements, on texts which make us read. What does it mean when we say we “read
something”? These questions have played a crucial role in driving reading research in the
past century.
Language theorists as well as reading specialists have come a long way in
explaining the reading process. Their work leaned on foundational theories of human
learning, psychology, and sociology to yield different hypotheses and thus suggest
different reading theories and models. There are two kinds: bottom-up processes and top-
down processes. The former takes in letters and words from the outside world and deal
with them with little recourse to higher-level knowledge. By comparison, top-down
processes are characterized as the intake of information based on the reader’s prior
knowledge and expectations (Goodman, 1994).
Different cognitive theories of reading place varying emphases on the two
approaches. Theories which emphasize the bottom-up approach focus on the processes
14
readers use to extract information from the printed text. The proponents of these theories
claim that readers deal with letters and words in a complete and systematic way (Gough,
1972). By contrast, theories which stress top-down processing claim that readers mainly
conduct a kind of hypotheses testing; one about words they will encounter and then take
in only enough visual information to test their hypotheses (Goodman, 1967; Smith,
1971).
However, the interactive model appears to be the most promising in helping to
explain the reading process. It encompasses different types of first-language and second-
language reading; it incorporates both bottom-up and top-down processes and recognizes
the contribution of both the reader and the text (Grabe, 1991). The interactive model
description recognizes other language factors, which are either taken for granted in the
top-down model or are over emphasized in the bottom-up model. The interactive model
also recognizes reader variables such as background knowledge, prediction, and other
global reading processes which are either unaccounted for in bottom-up models or
accounted for in top-down models for everything about reading.
English as a Foreign/Second Language (EFL/ESL) Reading Strategies
In the past decades, there has been sustained interest in promoting reading as a
significant and viable means of language development for foreign language (FL) learners
(Susser & Robb, 1990). Reading in English as a foreign language (EFL) has been greatly
emphasized in traditional FL teaching, and until today EFL reading is the core of
instruction in many countries (Susser & Robb, 1990). Today, this instruction focuses on
teaching readers rather than teaching texts (Hass & Flower, 1988). To be more specific,
15
we now teach reading skills and strategies to understand some elements related to the
process like content, textual features, rhetorical elements, and cultural background
(Susser & Robb, 1990).
Some researchers classify reading strategies according to the time they are used –
before, during, or after reading. Others categorize these strategies as either global or local
according to the part of the text on which they focus (Young & Oxford, 1997). Also,
there exists a common distinction between cognitive and metacognitive strategies. The
former are those which help the reader construct meaning from the text. Aebersold and
Field (1997) maintain that while reading, people’s minds constantly engage in different
complex processes. They start by processing information at the sentence level by using
bottom-up strategies. They focus on identification of a word’s meaning and grammatical
category, on sentence structure, on text details, and so forth. During this process, readers
constantly check their own schemata to see if the new information fits using top-down
strategies such as background knowledge and prediction (Barnett, 1988; Carrell, 1989).
By contrast, metacognitive strategies function to monitor and regulate cognitive
strategies (Devine, 1983; Flavell, 1979). These include “checking the outcome of any
attempt to solve a problem, planning one’s next move, monitoring the effectiveness of
any attempted action, testing, revising, and evaluating one’s strategies for learning”
(Baker & Brown, 1984, p. 354). For example, skimming any text for key information
requires a cognitive strategy, while evaluating the effectiveness of skimming as a
technique involves a metacognitive strategy (Devine, 1983). In first-language and
16
second-language contexts, there have been many studies on the effects of cognitive and
metacognitive strategy instruction on L1 and L2 reading.
Some of these studies (Carrell, Pharis, & Liberto, 1989; Palincsar & Brown,
1989) revealed that non-proficient L1/L2 readers either do not have the knowledge about
reading strategies or generally employ bottom-up strategies. The findings suggest that
strategy instruction should focus on comprehension monitoring to help non-skilled
readers overcome their difficulties.
From a personal point of view, which has developed out of my seven-year
experience as a teacher of EFL , a supervisor of EFL, and later a teaching assistant of
EFL curriculum and instruction, EFL teachers’ practices in Saudi schools are far from
teaching reading skills and strategies. Rather, EFL teachers spend the time devoted for
reading in practicing one skill, “silent reading”, and on what they believe are
“comprehension questions”. Because of this huge gap between the world’s rapid
movement toward teaching reading skills and strategies and the reality of reading
instruction in Saudi Arabia, this researcher thought of conducting a study to explore the
use of reading strategies among Saudi EFL college-level learners. I will determine Saudi
students’ reading abilities, what reading strategies they are already using effectively, and
which ones they are not. To do so, I will use a new reading strategies questionnaire that
utilizes cumulative and psychometric inclinations to measure reading strategies.
Significance of the Study
Saudi Arabia has spent millions of dollars to make free education available to all
members of its community. Exploring the use of reading strategies among Saudi EFL
17
learners will provide data that help in suggesting implications for effective EFL
instruction. This study aims to provide information needed to enhance teaching
pedagogy and to improve learning conditions in Saudi Arabia. For, in order to improve
the teaching of EFL reading in Saudi Arabia, research is needed to understand the
learners' reading problems and to evaluate their progress as they progress through EFL
programs in the educational system.
In my experience as a former EFL teacher and supervisor, I have observed a huge
gap between Saudi college-level students’ proficiency level and that of the higher
proficiency expected from EFL university students. The Educational Testing Services
(ETS) reports of the last seven years showed that Saudi students who took the Test Of
English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scored the lowest compared with their peers
from Middle Eastern countries (Educational Testing Services, 2007). Therefore, the
results of this study will generate baseline information and provide insights to decision
makers in higher education institutions and in the Ministry of Education. This study will
also work as a baseline and foundation for more research on this area in Saudi Arabia. It
will provide empirical data that might help in comparing Saudi students’ reading
comprehension level with EFL learners in other countries.
Finally, since L2 reading ability is regarded as the most needed skill for EFL
learners in academic settings (Alderson, 1984), the learners' inability to read L2 materials
may hinder the academic and professional development of those whose professions and
academic programs require accessing and obtaining information in the target language.
18
Thus, it is important for university EFL programs in Saudi Arabia to estimate their
students’ reading ability in order to design appropriate reading courses.
Another significance of this study is that it will show the general types of reading
strategies which Saudi EFL learners usually use when confronting academic texts.
Addressing the reading needs of university EFL learners in Saudi Arabia will not only
help these learners succeed in their language learning but will also help them succeed in
their academic and professional futures. Moreover, examining Saudi EFL learners'
strategy use may raise learners' metacognitive awareness of some useful reading
strategies they might not have come across before responding to the reading strategies
survey.
In summary, after analyzing the data, it is hoped that the results of this study
might provide the following:
1. Provide Saudi educators with new understandings and insights concerning the
factors that affect EFL reading comprehension so that educators can make their
instructional decisions based on sound judgments rather than intuitions.
2. Lead to further research in the relationship among students’ knowledge and use
of different strategies and other skills of English language.
3. Provide useful information for other developing EFL/ESL studies that have a
situation similar to the Saudi one.
4. Help Saudi college-level students in their academic study by developing
effective reading strategies.
19
5. Assist in providing recommendations to improve the current state of teaching
English in Saudi schools and public universities and provide some suggestions for
further research.
Statement of the Problem
There is an unclear picture about the most popular uses of reading strategies by
Saudi EFL learners in Saudi public universities. At present, only a small number of
studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of reading strategies on Saudi EFL
reading comprehension (Madkhali, 2005; Mushait, 2004; Al-Nujaidi, 2003; Al-Seweed,
2000). To the researcher’s knowledge, all studies that have measured reading strategy use
have utilized self-report questionnaires. For example, Al-Nujaidi (2003) examined the
relationship between reading strategies, vocabulary size, and reading comprehension of
EFL Saudi learners. He measured the students’ strategy use by adapting the Survey of
Reading Strategies (SORS) of Mokhtari and Reichard (2002). According to Tseng,
Dörnyei, and Schmit (2006), such self-report questionnaires are based on the assumption
that strategy use and strategic learning are related to an underlying trait because items ask
respondents to generalize their actions across situations rather than referencing singular
and specific learning events.
Al-Nujaidi (2003) concluded that the perceived use of reading strategies shown
by EFL learners in Saudi Arabia should be subjected to additional investigations. He
added that the awareness of reading strategies may not necessarily mean that Saudi EFL
learners know how and when to use these strategies. Thus, he recommended replications
of his study, using think-aloud protocols and interviews in examining the reading
20
strategies of EFL learners, which, according to him, would provide important and more
accurate details about the different aspects of EFL reading in Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, there is a lack of empirical studies that investigate the success of EFL
learners who use reading strategies compared with those who do not. The scarcity of such
studies does not permit the creation of any firm conclusions or generalizations about the
effectiveness or success of teaching reading strategies in Saudi public universities.
Without this knowledge, it is difficult to understand factors affecting reading
comprehension and important factors in reading instruction.
This study investigates how Saudi EFL learners in Saudi public universities use
reading strategies to improve their comprehension. Given the relative paucity of research
in this area, this study should be of particular interest when addressing how Saudi EFL
learners in public universities use reading strategies to improve comprehension.
The Purpose of the Study
This study has three main goals. First, it aims to explore Saudi EFL learners’ use
of reading strategies (before reading, while reading, and after reading). Second, the study
investigates the relationship between the use of reading strategies and reading
comprehension. Finally, the study investigates the Saudi students’ perceptions of other
factors that might affect their EFL reading comprehension. The uniqueness of this study
lies in utilizing a new scale in measuring reading strategies use. The current study
utilizes a new psychometric and cumulative scale that targets the learner trait of self-
regulatory capacity. The questionnaires used in most strategy studies consist of specific
statements that focus on specific strategic behaviors. In the L2 field, the most frequently
21
used instrument for assessing learning strategies is the Strategy Inventory for Language
Learning (SILL). Developed by Oxford (1990), it consists of six scales: (a)
“Remembering more effectively” (memory strategies); (b) “Using your mental
processes” (cognitive strategies); (c) “Compensating for missing knowledge”
(compensation strategies); (d) “Organizing and evaluating your learning” (metacognitive
strategies); (e) “Managing your emotions” (affective strategies); and (f) “Learning with
others” (social strategies).
SILL items involve five-point rating scales ranging from “never or almost never
true of me” to “always or almost always true of me” (Oxford, 1990). These items are
specific to one or more language learning strategies. They focus on specific strategic
behaviors, and the scale descriptors indicate frequencies of strategy use (ranging between
never to always). Thus, these items are not cumulative, and computing mean scale scores
is not justifiable psychometrically. Therefore, we cannot assume a linear relationship
between the individual item scores and the total scale scores (Tseng, et. al, 2006). In
contrast, items of the Reading Strategies Questionnaire (RSQ) used in this study ask
respondents to generalize their actions across situations rather than referencing singular
and specific learning events. They are general declarations or conditional relations
focusing on general and prominent facets of the learning process. Since RSQ items are
general inclinations, they can be assumed to be in a linear relationship with the
corresponding learner traits.
Finally, the study will provide more insight into the factors affecting Saudi EFL
reading comprehension. Based on the researcher’s personal experience and contact with
22
many Saudi learners, the reading section is considered the most difficult and challenging
section in standardized tests such as the TOEFL and Graduate Record Examination
(GRE). Awareness of these factors is critical in understanding how Saudi students
approach reading materials and what strategies most need to be taught in the classroom to
help them enhance their reading comprehension and academic achievement in general.
Variables of the Study
The study’s first independent variable is the use of reading strategies. This
variable consists of three subscale variables:
Planning strategies (before reading), such as setting a purpose for reading, guessing what
the text will be about, and finding the suitable environment.
Attending strategies (while reading), such as keeping concentration focused, preventing
procrastination, and engaging with the text.
Evaluating strategies (after reading), such as judging the consistency of the new
information, modifying and evaluating new learning, and linking new learning with
existing knowledge.
The only dependent variable in this study is students’ reading comprehension in English
as a foreign language.
Research Questions
This study is designed to explore three things: the use of reading strategies
among Saudi EFL college-level learners; the relationship between strategy use and Saudi
EFL reading comprehension; and the Saudi students’ perception of other factors that
23
affect their EFL reading comprehension. The study attempts to answer the following
research questions:
1. What reading strategies are most often used by Saudi EFL learners in Saudi
public universities? This research question seeks to identify the most widely used
strategies by Saudi learners to aid comprehension.
2. Do reading strategies (planning, attending, and evaluating) predict college-level
Saudi students’ achievement in English reading comprehension as a foreign
language?
3. How does Saudi students’ perception of reading for comprehension contribute
to understanding their use of reading strategies? (This question attempts to find
out what other factors, if any, might contribute to Saudi students’ reading
comprehension).
To address these questions, the researcher will determine students’ reading ability
by giving them a basic comprehension test. An old version of the TOEFL reading section
will be adapted for this purpose. (See appendixes A and B for a copy of the reading test
and model answers). The test consists of two comprehension passages followed by seven
multiple-choice reading comprehension questions on each. The reason behind choosing
two passages is to avoid any bias that could affect the results of the study when using one
reading comprehension passage. The expected full mark on the test is 14 points (one
point for each item). The test will be followed by a questionnaire that includes general
cumulative and psychometric statements about some of the planning, attending, and
evaluating reading strategies. The research participants will be asked to weigh to what
24
extent he/she agrees with each strategy statement on a scale of strongly agree (SA),
partially agree (PA), agree (A), slightly disagree (SLD), disagree (DA), and strongly
disagree (SD). Finally, by interviewing a sample of Saudi students, the researcher will
gain information that can help address the third question.
Definition of Terms
L1: First language: A speaker's mother tongue.
L2: Second language.
ESL: English as a Second Language: English learned in a country where it is a primary
language (for example, United States, United Kingdom., and Australia).
EFL: English as a Foreign Language: English learned in a country where it is not the
primary language (for example, Saudi Arabia, Japan).
Reading Strategies: Langer (1982) defines reading strategies as the general patterns that
reveal a reader's resources for understanding. Johnson (1983) defines reading strategies
as when the readers monitor, understand, and take action when necessary. In this study,
the researcher defines reading strategies according to three types: Planning strategies
(before reading), attending strategies (while reading), and evaluating strategies (after
reading):
Planning Strategies (before-reading strategies) include selecting (learning goals),
preparing (activating relevant memory schemata), gauging (determining difficulty
of tasks and depth of processing involved), and estimating (predicting the
information processing demands of the task).
25
Attending Strategies (while-reading strategies) include focusing (on materials),
searching (relating presented information to memory), contrasting (comparing
presented information to memory), and validating (confirming presented
information with existing knowledge).
Evaluating Strategies (after-reading strategies) include testing (determining the
consistency of new information) and judging; reviewing strategies include
confirming (using new information), repeating (practice recall), and revising.
Reading Strategy Use: Strategy use in this study is defined as the Saudi students’
agreement on some general statements that reflect their self-regulatory capacity.
College-Level Saudi Students: Students, who are first year; sophomores, juniors, or
seniors majoring in the department of English language and literature in four major Saudi
universities: King Faisal University, King Abdul-Aziz University, Teachers’ Colleges in
Jeddah, and Teachers’ College in Al-Ahsa.
Reading Comprehension Achievement: Reading comprehension achievement is the
amount of learning, meaning, and information gained which readers are able to develop
while reading. This achievement is measured by a score students obtain in a
comprehension test. In this study, the maximum achievement score is 14 and the
minimum is zero.
Reading Strategies Questionnaire: RSQ is a measure of reading strategy use among EFL
students. It consists of general inclination statements about three types of reading
strategies (planning, attending, and evaluating).
26
Self-regulation: Self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and
systemically adapted as needed to affect one’s learning and motivation (Schunk, 1994;
Zimmerman, & Schunk 1989). Baumeister and Vohs (2004) define “self-regulation” as
“the exercise of control over oneself, especially with regard to bringing the self into line
with preferred (thus, regular) standards” (p.2). In this study, five facets of self-regulation
are introduced:
Commitment control: This helps to preserve or increase the learners’ original goal
commitment (e.g., keeping in mind favorable expectations or positive incentives
and rewards; focusing on what would happen if the original intention failed).
Metacognitive control: This involves the monitoring and controlling of
concentration and the curtailing of any unnecessary procrastination (e.g.,
identifying recurring distractions and developing defensive routines; focusing on
the first steps to take when getting down to an activity).
Satiation control: This helps to eliminate boredom and to add extra attraction for
or interest in the task (e.g., adding a twist to the task; using one’s fantasy to liven
up the task).
Emotion control: This concerns the management of disruptive emotional states or
moods, and the generation of emotions that will be conducive to implementing
one’s intentions (e.g., self-encouragement; using relaxation and meditation
techniques).
Environmental control: This helps to eliminate negative environmental influences
and to exploit positive environmental influences by making the environment an
27
ally in the pursuit of a difficult goal (e.g., eliminating distractions; asking friends
to help and not to allow one to do something).
Organization of the Study
The research is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the nature and
the objectives of the study. Chapter 2 presents a review of related literature for the study
that is organized into eight main headings: Introduction, models of reading (bottom-up,
top-down, and interactive), reading in L1 and L2, language-learning strategies, reading
strategies (definition, classification, the relationship between reading strategies and
reading ability, and reading strategies studies in Saudi Arabia), reading skills (reading
skills and language writing systems and proficient readers’ skills), and education in Saudi
Arabia (teaching English language in Saudi school and current classroom reading
practices in Saudi Arabia. Chapter 3 describes the research design and methodology.
Chapter 4 will present the findings of the study. Chapter 5 will discuss conclusions that
are drawn from the data and present some recommendations based on the findings.
28
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
Introduction
A large number of foreign-language reading specialists view reading as an
interactive process. This means that while the reader’s mental processes occur at different
levels, he engages himself in an interaction with the print to create meaning (Barnett,
1988; Carrell, Devine & Eskey, 2000). It is the interaction among the reader variables
(an interest in the topic, a purpose for reading, a prior knowledge of the topic) and text
variables (the text structure and vocabulary) that determines the reader’s comprehension
of the text (Hosenfeld, 1979).
According to “schema theory,” the reader may misunderstand the new material,
ignore it, or revise schemata to validate the new information given within the text when it
does not fit into his own schemata (Rumelhart, 1980). Carrell (1987) created the divisions
of schemata into content schemata and formal schemata. The former is background
knowledge about the content which helps the reader understand and remember more than
someone who is less familiar with the topic (Carrell, et al., 2000). Formal schemata
describe the reader’s expectations about how different textual information will fit
together and in what order they will appear.
As a former teacher of English at elementary and secondary schools and a
supervisor of EFL for two years, I can say that teaching EFL reading in Saudi Arabia
depends mostly on repeated reading. Students read different genres of texts several
times in class and then answer questions, most of which are based on facts. Students’
29
comprehension of texts is usually measured by their ability to answer these questions
correctly. This involves the first two levels of Bloom’s taxonomy: knowledge and
comprehension. However, I believe that students should learn how to effectively read
and reflect on reading to go beyond these levels to analysis, syntheses, and evaluation.
Testing what students learn in real life, comparing ideas from different books based on
their applicability, and modifying these practical ideas to fit their needs are skills that
enhance their reading ability.
The researcher’s theoretical stance is based on the interactive model of reading,
which recognizes the contribution of both the reader and the text to the reading process
and the interaction between bottom-up and top-down processes. Therefore, the first
section of the literature review discusses the bottom-up, top-down, and interactive
reading models.
Models of Reading
In the last four decades, different views concerning the nature and the process of
reading have resulted in the emergence of several reading models. The bottom-up model
(Gough, 1972), the top-down model (Goodman, 1967; Smith, 1971), and the interactive
model (Rumelhart, 1977, 1980; Stanovich, 1980; Carrell, 1983a, 1983b) are usually
discussed in literature on reading. Almost every single reading strategy is based on some
of the theoretical assumptions of these models. In this section, I will briefly discuss their
main tenets, their implications for reading instruction, and how reading is explained in
each model.
Bottom-Up Models
30
Usually described as “linear,” the bottom-up theory of reading was widespread in
the 1960s and revived by Gough’s (1972) views of the process. The reader starts with
letters in the decoding; proceeds to words; and then, ultimately, understands sentences.
This data-driven process mainly utilizes the textual elements to construct the meaning of
a passage, becoming so automatic that sometimes the fluent reader is unaware of it.
Since the bottom-up approach emphasizes sight-reading of words in isolation, rapid word
recognition is essential (Van Duzer, 1999).
Bottom-up models are also hierarchical, which means that one needs to know not
only all the letters of a word to access its meaning but also all the words in a clause or a
sentence to access their total meanings (Paron, 1997). Therefore, the bottom-up approach
puts more emphasis on knowledge of vocabulary than other models do. Beyond letter
recognition, words in bottom-up models seem to represent the basic units of meaning,
whose comprehension is a prerequisite for that of the entire text.
A second important aspect of the bottom-up model is its focus on orthographic
recognition. According to this view, second-language learners, like the Saudis, whose
first languages have different orthographic systems from the target language, may have
some difficulty in word identification and recognition (Coady & Huckin, 1997). This
observation emphasizes the role of vocabulary knowledge, which facilitates automatic
decoding in second language prefixes, suffixes, and foreign root words. This automaticity
allows readers to focus more attention on comprehension rather than on decoding
individual words. It seems that the more effort put in decoding words, the less processing
31
capacity is left for comprehension. It has also been confirmed that fast decoding improves
comprehension (Breznitz, 1997; as cited in Pressley 2000).
Implications for Instruction
According to bottom-up models, comprehension processes demand resources.
Therefore, “educators should aim at helping learners automatize lexical access through a
great amount of repeated exposure to print” (Taguchi, Gorsuch, & Sasamoto, 2006, p.3).
Readers can make use of some of their attentional resources to achieve better
comprehension by executing word recognition fast and automatically (Samuels, 1994).
Therefore, students should learn how to identify individual letters first (visually) and then
how to put these individual letters and letter combinations to different meaningful
sounds. Although many approaches to teaching decoding concentrates on sounding out
words, all such instruction focuses on automatic decoding and on comprehension. The
main assumption in this model is that (until proven to be wrong by diagnostic tests), poor
readers have potential decoding problems (Purcell-Gates, 1997).
Bottom-Up Models and L2/FL reading
The increased importance attributed to automatic word recognition in L1 reading
has extended to the L2 reading area. Haynes (as cited in Weir & Urquhart 1998) points
out that instructors and teachers need to raise the level of automaticised vocabulary rather
than focus on decoding. She cites evidence from L1 studies that found fluent reading is
achieved by increasing one’s bottom-up processing of print and by decreasing semantic
and syntactic guessing. However, Bernhardt (1996) goes so far as to claim that the
32
ultimate goal of L2 reading is automaticity, since the good L1 reader processes language
without thinking consciously.
Although there is a great deal of consensus on the role of automaticity in L2
reading, there is less agreement on how to achieve it. Haynes (cited in Weir & Urquhart
1998) argues that the importance of word unit processing needs to be recognized in ESL
teaching. Therefore, precision of encoding, spelling, and pronunciation can be increased
through oral and written practice of important vocabulary from reading. Conversely,
Juel (as cited in Weir & Urquhart 1998) points out that automaticity in most skills comes
from over learning, although she admits that we do not know what exactly how word
recognition becomes automatic. Is it recognition of common sound spelling patterns, or
recognition of high frequency words?
Emphasizing bottom-up processing, Paran (1996) argues strongly for developing
exercises to help EFL students recognize vocabulary more automatically. He places a
good deal of emphasis on bottom-up processing. According to Paran (1996), good
readers do not depend solely on hypothesis formation as is generally believed. Rather,
bottom-up processing as well as visual inputs occur during reading. He also argues that
guessing is not an appropriate strategy for the lower levels of processing (word or phrase
recognition). Furthermore, top-down approaches would seem to be more suited to
expeditious reading such as skimming or search reading where the focus is on the
macrostructure of the text.
I believe that the use of bottom-up models in Saudi classrooms can be justified for
two reasons: the age of the language learners (Saudi students start learning English at
33
grade 11), and the lack of input and incidental learning in the total FL learning
environment. According to the Critical Period Hypothesis,
language learning, which occurs after the end of the critical
period, may not be based on the innate structures believed to
contribute to first language or second language acquisition in
early childhood. Rather, older learners depend on more general
learning abilities --the same ones they might use to learn other
kinds of skills or information. (Lightbown and Spada, 1997, p.
42)
Compared with many second-language learners in second language situations,
foreign language learners are also at a disadvantage in terms of the role of the learning
environment in reinforcing FL learning. Therefore, they are still limited to traditional
classroom settings. FL (such as EFL) and L2 (such as ESL) learners are usually classified
into the same group. However, the amount of exposure to the second language might vary
from one country to the other. To achieve a desired proficiency in FL learning, an
appropriate learning atmosphere should be carefully created in the language classrooms.
Practicing decoding skills as well as phonics instruction – both of which are
recommended by bottom-up models proponents – immensely benefit FL students,
especially those in my homeland of Saudi Arabia.
In fact, this is what teachers really do in classroom nowadays in Saudi Arabia
since there is no concern about teaching “isolated skills”. According to this reading
theory, by isolating the decoding process into pieces, we make it easier to grasp and
34
practice. The authors of bottom-up models suggest that their theories implicate
instructional activities as well. They propose repeated readings, which increases accuracy
and automaticity in word recognition; reading familiar texts if the student’s problem is
decoding, and reading interesting and satisfying texts within the student’s decoding
ability (Purcell-Gates, 1997).
Finally, when applying bottom-up models, such as Automaticity Theory (AT) to
Saudi reading classrooms, Saudi learners usually start from an absolute beginning
language learning stage and should progress until they acquire the desired proficiency.
Before they get involved in complex tasks in real interactive communication, they need to
become more fluent, automatic, and efficient in some mental processes. By incorporating
integrative tasks in the learning situation, people can use different skills they have
developed in more complex activities.
However, a major problem of bottom-up models is their view of word
recognition. Although Gough (1984) believes that word recognition is mediated by letter
recognition, Terry, Samuels, and Laberge (as cited in Samuels & Kamil, 1984) have
found frequent words to be processed and identified as holistic units. They found no
difference in the processing time between short and long words, which supports a holistic
word-recognition processing. Another problem with the bottom-up model of reading is
that it does not seem to consider the contribution of the context or the reader’s
background knowledge to reading comprehension. Going beyond the printed letters
seems to receive little or no attention in this model. Recognition of inadequacies in the
35
bottom-up model, such as how it explicates the reading process, led to the emergence of
other models, such as the top-down model.
Top-Down Models
Goodman (1967) introduced the top-down model of reading, in which reading
was viewed as a psycholinguistic guessing game. Another renowned advocate of the top-
down model is Smith (1971). In this concept-driven model, readers’ background
knowledge and expectations guide them in their reconstruction of the meaning of the text.
Based on their background knowledge, readers start with certain expectations concerning
the text. They then use their vocabulary knowledge in decoding words in the text to
confirm, disconfirm, or modify previous expectations (Aebersold & Field, 1997). This
process is usually called “sampling” of the text. Describing the process, Cohen (1990)
maintains that “the reader does not read all words and sentences in the text, but rather
chooses certain words and phrases to comprehend the meaning of the text ” (p.75).
The top-down model focuses on some reading skills, such as prediction,
inferences, and content guessing. Unlike the bottom-up model, in this model, texts have
no stand-alone meaning. It is the reader who reconstructs the meaning of the text by
fitting it into his prior knowledge. Samuels and Kamil (1984) have noted: “It is more
accurate to assert that [Goodman’s] model always prefers the cognitive economy of
reliance on well-developed linguistic (syntactic and semantic) rather than graphic
information" (p.187). This would entail the existence of well-developed linguistic
knowledge, of which lexical knowledge may be the most important.
36
Thus, the top-down model assumes that readers would have no decoding
problems to use the text as a prompt for activating and implementing global and top-
down processes and strategies. Therefore, some reading researchers (Eskey, 1988;
Stanovich, 1980) believe that the top-down model seems to explicate the reading process
of fluent readers but not for poor or beginning ones.
Despite the fact that bottom-up processes play a central role in reading , top-down
processes are still of great importance. Reading studies have shown that predictable
words are fixated on for shorter periods of time. Besides, readers tend to skip these words
more often than the less predictable ones (Rayner & Pollatsek 1989).
Implications for Instruction (Top-Down Models)
Since the main purpose of reading in this model is comprehension, learners
should always deal with whole texts, which are read for authentic purposes (whole
language instruction). Breaking the process down into isolated pieces is
counterproductive to comprehension. It deprives the learners from using all the cue
systems and from engaging in a full cyclic use of reading strategies in the pursuit of
meaning (Purcell-Gates, 1997).
Teachers who adopt these ideas will encourage their students to read the texts that
they want to. These teachers will not focus on reading fluency. Rather, their focus will be
on helping students make sense of texts by the use of translation. Therefore, students in
these classes may rarely be asked to read aloud for accuracy. If they happen to do so, it is
to share their favorite readings or because the teacher can learn more about different ways
and strategies students use in pursuit of meaning (Goodman, 1994; Rosenblatt, 1994).
37
Top-Down Models and L2/FL reading
The importance of Goodman’s attribution to hypothesis formation and sampling
has had a considerable influence on L2 reading theory. Grabe, Eskey, & Dubin (1986)
pointed out that because this approach is based on a good understanding of the reading
process, its effect on methods and materials for the teaching of second-language reading
has been both dramatic and mainly positive. They continued to argue that much of the
credit for the new concern in language teaching with reading as an independent skill, and
for improvement in reading pedagogy and materials, is accorded to the work of Goodman
and Smith and their supporters. The latter have successfully promoted a top-down model
of the process (Grabe, et al., 1986).
Because comprehension is viewed as a personal transaction between the reader
and the text, teachers will use the traditional comprehension questions for activities
calling for different responses to texts – questions neither evaluated as correct nor
incorrect. Besides, teachers neither tend to read nor encourage their students to read
simplified texts. They believe that by reading simplified texts, we damage their nature (as
a natural language) and hence the reader stops using his language knowledge and
strategies (Purcell-Gates, 1997).
Under this model, teachers should employ highly predictable texts for beginning
readers so that they can engage with the whole text very easily. Teachers can use
patterned language such as jingles, songs, and poetry to help these readers employ some
of their reading strategies such as predicting, sampling, and selecting. Teachers also help
students engage in the confirming and disconfirming of correction (Purcell-Gates, 1997).
38
The Interactive Model
Introduced by the writings of Rumelhart (1977) and Stanovich (1980), the
interactive model suggests an interaction between bottom-up and top-down processes.
Proponents of this model assert that neither bottom-up nor top-down models can by
themselves describe the reading process. Each type of processing is seen to contribute to
the reconstruction of the message encoded in the text (Eskey, 1988). Stanovich (1980)
suggests that poor readers tend to resort to high-level processes more often than skilled or
fluent readers. The use of top-down processes seems to compensate for poor readers’ lack
of recognition skills or use of bottom-up processes.
The interactive model also incorporates several major findings from research on
schema theory. Anderson and Pearson (1984) define schema as “an abstract knowledge
structure” (p. 259). A schema is usually described as a kind of prior knowledge that
readers use to put the information from the text in a certain perspective so as to better
comprehend it. Some schema researchers suggest that comprehension of texts involves
using the text as a guide to the kind of background information that needs to be activated
for comprehension (Carrell, 1983a). Bensoussan (1998) found that 23% of EFL learners’
incorrect answers to comprehension questions were attributed to activating inappropriate
schemata. Carrell (1987) describes two types of schemata – a content schema and a
formal schema – while Cohen (1990) suggests the existence of three types, namely,
content (subject, culture, etc.), language (vocabulary, cohesive structures, spelling, and
punctuation), and textual (rhetorical structure of different genres).
39
For fluent native speakers, Eskey (1988) maintains that knowledge about
language is part of their schema which can be readily available and thus activated
automatically. In the realm of second-language reading, Eskey believes that rapid and
accurate decoding is an important skill for L2 readers. This accurate decoding will
certainly allow other important higher and top-down processes to operate simultaneously.
L2 readers usually need linguistic knowledge, of which vocabulary knowledge is
paramount. Such knowledge enables readers to use the text efficiently during the
comprehension process. Clarke (1979) has also suggested that there is a linguistic
threshold, after which L2 learners may read L2 texts as efficiently as they read their L1
texts. Stanovich (1980) and Carrel1 (1984) believe that bottom-up and top-down
processes compensate for each other.
When a reader lacks the appropriate content schema for a certain text, he will rely
more heavily on bottom-up processes to compensate for a lack of necessary background
knowledge. The opposite could be true about some readers who lack the bottom-up
processes necessary to comprehend a text. The interactive approach assumes that good
readers are proficient at both decoding and interpreting the text (Eskey, 1988). This
approach also endorses the idea that having automatic recognition skills will free the
reader’s mind to make connections between the parts of the text, interpret the text more
accurately, and comprehend what is being read. Such interaction between high-level and
low-level processes seems to take place simultaneously.
The Interactive Model and L2/FL Reading
40
If one sees reading as a process of constructing meaning, evidence of reading
growth will include, but not be limited to, achievement data. Braunger and Lewis (2006,
p. 14) assert:
Additional evidence of literacy development comes from
naturalistic studies of students actually reading, for example,
teachers’ observations and analysis of literacy experiences;
classroom research on the impact of social interaction, strategic
modeling, and materials on literary learning; readers’ use of all
cue systems in reading ( letter-sound, meaning, syntax, and
pragmatics) ; connections between learners’ reading and writing;
and a host of other variables involved in the reading process.
For skilled readers, top-down and bottom-up processing are concurrent.
Comprehension takes place only when accumulated evidence strongly supports a
particular hypothesis. Because comprehension depends on both graphic information and
information in the reader’s mind, it may be obstructed when a critical skill or a piece of
information is missing. Then, comprehension is hampered; the skilled reader
compensates by decoding key words, by relying on context, or both (Rumelhart, 1980).
A skilled reader is the one who is able to use all kinds of information such as sensory,
syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic to accomplish his goals. These different information
sources interact in complex ways during the reading process.
Finally, the interactive model places a great deal of importance on vocabulary
building in developing reading fluency. It is not only important to have an extensive
41
vocabulary, but it is also a precondition for the development of reading fluency and
reading skills. Consequently, it is crucial to develop word recognition since it is more
important in developing fluency than contexts clues are (Abisamra, 2001).
Implications for Instruction
As a “whole-part-whole” instruction (Purcell-Gates, 1997), the interactive model
of teaching involves learners in meaningful reading and writing activities to extract some
specific skills. These focused-upon skills are then integrated into authentic activities for
practice in the actual reading and writing process. Because they acknowledge the role of
social context, the teachers use different reading and writing strategies in various genres
and for different audiences and purposes (Rumelhart, 1977).
In summation, approaches in reading theories assume that the reading process,
even in L2, is interactive. It involves a mixture of bottom-up and top-down processing.
This is a widely accepted view by researchers, in that both models interact during the
reading process. The reader, using them, interacts actively with the text (Block, 1992).
Therefore, teachers who adopt the interactive model in their reading instruction take
comprehension as the only purpose for reading. Hence, in their classrooms, they stress
meaning making activities. Some teachers might even teach isolated skills or involve
their students in the reading and writing of compelling texts.
Reading Strategies
Reading strategy research emphasizes the reading process rather than
comprehension. Ryan, et al.(as cited in Garner, 1987) have concluded that insufficient
strategies and limited involvement in the reading process lead to comprehension
42
problems, even among students who have sufficient vocabulary knowledge and decoding
skills. These findings may suggest that low EFL-reading proficiency problems may not
be related to attitudinal factors. According to several EFL reading studies conducted in
Saudi Arabia (Al-Arfaj, 1996; Al-Samani, 1999; & Al-Akloby, 2001), learners seem to
have positive attitudes towards learning English and reading EFL materials. Their
problems, therefore, may be attributed to poor linguistic or strategic knowledge. Sheorey
and Mokhtari (2001) believe that an awareness of reading strategies and comprehension
monitoring is an important characteristic of good readers. (They claim that to
comprehend a text, readers need to use their metacognitive knowledge about reading and
“invoke conscious and deliberate strategies” (p. 433). This may mean that if readers are
not aware of certain strategies, they will not use them in the reading task. Thus, good
readers both know and utilize appropriate reading strategies.
Definition of Reading Strategies
Literature on reading provides several definitions of reading strategies. According
to Garner (1987), reading strategies are mainly deliberate, planned activities used by
active readers, to remedy apparent cognitive failure. Carrell, Gajdusek, and Wise (1998),
on the other hand, defined reading strategies based on the writing of several reading
researchers as “actions that readers select and control to achieve desired goals or
objectives” (p. 97). Both definitions reflect the reading strategies that will be used in this
dissertation research.
Classification of Reading Strategies
43
Reading strategies can be classified according to the time they are used – before,
during, or after reading. They also can be categorized as either global or local according
to the part of the text on which they focus (Young & Oxford, 1997). A general distinction
is also made between cognitive and metacognitive strategies. Garner (1987) states: “If
cognition involves perceiving, understanding, remembering, and so forth, then
metacognition involves thinking about one’s own perceiving, understanding, and the rest”
(p. 16). Flavell (1979) maintained that “cognitive strategies are invoked to make
cognitive progress, metacognitive strategies to monitor it” (p. 909). Moreover, Sheorey
and Mokhtari (2001) suggest that the metacognitive knowledge of readers includes an
awareness of an array of reading strategies.
In this study, the researcher will maintain the first classification. For this research,
reading strategies are grouped into three main types: planning strategies (before reading),
attending strategies (while reading), and evaluating strategies (after reading).
Planning strategies (before-reading strategies) include selecting goals, preparing
(activating relevant schemata), gauging (determining difficulty of tasks and depth
of processing involved), and estimating (predicting the information processing
demands of the task).
Attending strategies (while-reading strategies) include focusing (on materials),
searching (relating presented information to memory), contrasting (comparing
presented information to memory), and validating (confirming presented
information with existing knowledge). Encoding strategies include elaborating
44
(linking presented information with existing knowledge) and qualitatively relating
(linking presented information with deeper levels of existing knowledge).
Evaluating strategies (after-reading strategies) include testing (determining the
consistency of new information), and judging; reviewing strategies include
confirming (using new information), repeating (practicing recall), and revising.
The Comparison of L1 and L2 Reading Strategies
The issues of how first-language reading and second-language reading are related;
whether first-language reading strategies can be transferred to second-language reading;
and the relationship between first- and second-language reading are still attracting
researchers’ attention. Cheng (1998) interviewed 10 Taiwanese students to learn about
the types of reading strategies used by these participants when reading English. Two
distinctive patterns emerged: “integrating” and “non-integrating.” Integrators were more
likely to use more general or top-down types of strategies, while non-integrators tended
to use local, bottom-up types. Cheng’s findings also indicated that sociocultural factors
impacted these participants’ reading purposes, particularly their English-learning
experiences, and the fact that they employed different patterns of strategies to achieve
those purposes. Cheng mentioned that other factors (e.g., personality, exposure to
strategy training, language proficiency, reading interests, and academic major) in a
learning context might have influenced the development of these participants’ reading
strategies.
Wu (2002) also explored whether L2 high-proficient students differed from their
low-proficient counterparts in their reading awareness. Furthermore, she examined
45
whether younger and older students had different perceptions about reading and also
investigated if there was any distinction between native and foreign-language reading
strategy use. Wu found that older and more proficient readers appeared to have more
awareness of their metacognitive skills, while low-proficient readers relied on bottom-up
strategies for processing information. Other researchers concentrated on L2 readers’
awareness of effective reading strategies as they read L2 texts (Chern, 1994; Cheng,
2000; Hsu, 2003). Chern (1994) investigated Chinese readers’ metacognitive awareness
when reading Chinese and English. The results demonstrated that Chinese readers were
dictionary-dependent and accuracy-oriented readers while reading English and that they
lacked awareness of their reading behaviors when comprehending meaning or
remembering the text.
Cheng (2000) also concluded that Taiwanese EFL college students’ metacognitive
awareness was more “global,” or top-down, while reading Chinese. In contrast, they
relied on local reading strategies, such as rereading, sentence syntax, and word meanings
when reading English texts. Hsu (2003) compared English reading awareness, their
perceptions of their knowledge about strategy use, and the reading performance of
college students in the General Education System (GES) and the Technological and
Vocational Education System (TVES). Her findings showed that GES students had more
confidence reading in English than the TVES students did. Also, the TVES students
perceived the translating of unknown words as an effective reading strategy. When faced
with repair strategies, GES and TVES students’ favorite strategy was to “go back to a
point before the problematic part and reread from there.” The results showed differences
46
in metacognitive awareness between GES and TVES students in terms of their reading
effectiveness, reading difficulties, and repair strategies.
Other researchers have conducted studies on the strategies and metacognitive
awareness between the first language and second language. Yang (1996) compared
strategies that 90 EFL Taiwanese college freshmen employed when reading Chinese and
English. She found that the students reported using more global and macrolinguistic-level
reading strategies (guessing through the context and making inferences) when reading
Chinese. On the other hand, the students tended to use more local and microlinguistic
strategies (looking up vocabulary) when reading English. They thought that the more
vocabulary they memorized, the more they could understand the texts. Later, Feng and
Mokhtari (1998) investigated the strategies used by native speakers of Chinese when
reading easy and difficult passages in their own language and in English. The results
revealed that the native speakers employed strategies more frequently when they read in
English than in Chinese. Moreover, subjects employed reading strategies more frequently
for difficult texts than for easy ones.
Al-Sheikh (2002) examined the metacognitive knowledge and reading strategies
used by native Arabic speakers. Ninety participants completed background and reading
strategy inventories. Ten were then selected for an interview in the follow-up study
focusing on how they actually use the strategies when reading in English and Arabic. The
90 participants used significantly more strategies in English than in Arabic. They also
reported using more repair strategies (adjusting the reading time, visualizing information,
and rereading) and “support reading strategies” in English rather than in Arabic. Support
47
reading strategies included asking oneself questions and translating readings from
English. These results were consistent with those of Feng and Mokhtari (1998), who
investigated Chinese native speakers’ use of reading strategies while reading easy and
difficult passages in Chinese and English. However, Feng and Mokhtari’s (1998) findings
and Al-Sheikh’s (2002) challenged Pritchard’s (1990) and Tang’s (2001) conclusions.
Pritchard indicated that bilingual Latino high school students used the same reading
strategies across languages. Similarly, Tang (2001) found that four ESL students used
similar strategies when reading English and Chinese narrative texts. While researchers
differ in their views about the relationships between first-language strategies and second-
or foreign-language strategies, the consensus is that reading in a second or foreign
language depends, to some degree, on the reader’s proficiency in that language and on his
employment of metacognitive strategies.
Sarige (1987) compared the strategy use of learners reading in L1 and in L2 using
a think-aloud protocol method. She found that the readers’ use of strategies and the
relation between strategies used and actual success in comprehension were highly similar
in L1 and L2. She also claims to have determined which strategic “moves” contributed to
a reader’s success and failure. McDough (1995) brings together the reading strategies
identified in different research within Sarige’s four categories. Identified by researchers
interpreting the think-aloud data, they are:
Technical aid strategies: These would include skimming, scanning, marking the
text, and using the glossary.
48
Clarification and simplification strategies: These include syntactic simplification,
producing synonyms, using paraphrase of rhetorical function, interpreting the text,
and using inference.
Coherence detection strategies: These would include identifying the macroframe,
keeping the meaning in mind, using information about the story, using
background knowledge, and identifying key information.
Monitoring strategies: These would include consciously changing the plan,
varying the reading rate, rereading, correcting mistakes, evaluating guesses, and
questioning.
Reading Skills
The process of reading involves the interaction of some complex linguistic
processes and knowledge bases which can be divided into “print decoding” and
“comprehension processes” (Norris & Hoffman, 2002). Decoding processes include the
visual processing of basic print shapes and the auditory phonetic characteristics of the
speech sounds represented by the print. These shapes and auditory features are
categorized by the reader into letters and phonemes.
Through phonotactic and orthographic rule systems, these phonemes and letters
are organized into allowable syllable and word forms. Consequently, the reader relates
each word in print to its meaning in his mental lexicon. These decoding processes are
informed by the comprehension processes, which include knowledge of how syntactic
structure informs meaning, knowledge of how different discourse structures organize
49
information, and an ability to relate the propositions derived from print to the reader’s
current knowledge and beliefs (Martino & Hoffman, 2002).
For those reading theorists who acknowledge the importance of both the text and
the reader in the reading process, a combination of the two emerged in “the interactive
approach,” in which reading skills surpass linguistic processes. Here, reading is a process
of combining textual information with the reader’s prior knowledge. The interactive
model (Stanovich, 1980) views reading as the interaction between the reader and the text,
with which he interacts to create meaning as his mental processes function together at
different levels (Bernhardt, 1996; Carrell, et al., 2000).
Upton and Thompson (2001) state: “Reading in a second language (L2) is not a
monolingual event; L2 readers have access to their first language (L1) as they read, and
many use it as a strategy to help comprehend an L2 text” (p. 469). Research has begun to
focus on some variables related to L1 that might influence L2 reading. One of these
variables is “mental translation,” defined by Kern (1994) as “the mental reprocessing of
L2 words, phrases, or sentences in L1 forms while reading L2 texts” (p. 442). Cook
(1992) argued that all L2 learners access their L1 while processing L2. He suggested that
L1 should be considered as a vital variable when teaching L2 reading because L1 is
already present in L2 learners’ minds. Moreover, Kern (1994) found that L2 learners use
translation as a cognitive strategy to understand the L2 text. In addition, he found that
mental translation during L2 reading served the functional purpose of facilitating the
generation and comprehension of meaning.
In another study, Upton (1997) found that reliance on L1 as the language of
50
thought decreased as proficiency in the L2 increased. He noted that non-proficient L2
learners used their L1 more frequently when wrestling with unfamiliar vocabulary
(seeking global understanding of L2) and when attempting to summarize what they
understood. Upton suggested that L1 is also used to think about and process what is being
read in the L2, in addition to being in mental translation. Lastly, Upton and Thompson
(2001) concluded that “the use of L1 by L2 readers to help them wrestle with word and
sentence-level problems, confirm comprehension, predict text structure and content, as
well as monitor text characteristics and reading behavior, supports a sociocultural view of
language as a tool for thought as proposed by Vygotsky (1986)” (p. 491).
With respect to the relationship between L1 and L2 reading skills, different
hypotheses have been suggested. The “transfer” hypothesis (Goodman, 1971), the
“threshold” hypothesis (Alderson, 1984; Clarke, 1979; Cummins, 1980) and the
“processing efficiency” hypothesis are the best known hypotheses that attempt to explain
L1 and L2 reading relations. The transfer hypothesis states that differences between the
components of L1 and L2 reading are negligible. This is because L2 readers transfer all
their reading comprehension skills already acquired in L1 reading (such as reading
strategies and metacognitive knowledge about reading tasks) to L2 reading.
By contrast, the threshold hypothesis was proposed to explain the observation that
reading in a language which is not the learner’s first language is a source of considerable
difficulty (Alderson, 1984). Claims surfaced that L2 reading was not only slower but also
that it resulted in less comprehension than L1 reading, even when readers understood the
words and structures in L2 texts (Alderson, 1984). It was also assumed that poor L2
51
lexical and grammatical knowledge prevented beginning L2 readers from applying
reading strategies and the metacognitive knowledge they used in L1 reading.
Metaphorically speaking, L2-specific linguistic knowledge constitutes a threshold which
has to be crossed before L1 skills transfer to L2 performance and they become similar.
The hypothesis states that the initial stages of L2 reading development, L2 vocabulary,
and grammar knowledge are more important than reading strategies and metacognitive
knowledge.
Reading Skills and the Language Writing System
Language orthographic systems might direct readers to focus more on some
reading skills than on others. Three major orthographic systems are used in languages:
logographic, syllabic, and alphabetic. In logographic systems such as Chinese, one
graphemic unit usually represents the meaning and the sound of an entire word or
morpheme (Koda, 1988). Because of the one-to-one correspondence between graphemic
representation and meaning, learning to read a logography is simplified when a limited
number of characters must be processed. The logographic-proficient reader must know as
many signs as there are words and graphemes in his spoken language.
In syllabic systems, each graphemic unit represents a syllable (each Japanese
syllabary consists of 46 basic letters and two forms of diacritical marks). Finally, in
alphabetic systems such as English, the unit of representation is the phoneme. According
to Gelb (as cited in Koda, 1988), since the symbol-to-sound correspondence in the
English alphabet is reduced to the smallest sound unit (phoneme), a smaller number of
symbols is needed to transcribe spoken language.
52
Orthographic knowledge also makes a more substantial contribution to L2
reading. Different L1 orthographic properties generate qualitatively distinct processing
procedures for word recognition in different languages. Koda assumes that L2 word-
recognition processing mechanisms are heavily constrained by the learner’s L1
orthographic properties. Koda also contends that L2 readers bring their L1 orthographic
knowledge and processing mechanisms to bear on L2 word recognition. Green and Meara
(1987) found that ESL learners with Roman-alphabetic (Spanish), non-Roman alphabetic
(Arabic), and non-alphabetic (Chinese) L1 backgrounds utilized different visual-
processing strategies when performing a letter-searching task in their L1s. However,
when performing the task in their L2, all subjects used visual search strategies similar to
those used in their L1s (as cited in Coady & Huckin, 1997). These findings suggest that
L1 writing systems have profound and long-lasting effects on the way L2 linguistic
materials are processed.
From different perspectives, several studies on bilingual word recognition
(Brown & Haynes, 1985; Koda, 1988, 1990) have confirmed that L2 readers with a non-
alphabetic orthography in their L1 (e.g., Chinese, Japanese) are less efficient at
processing phoneme-grapheme correspondences in English words than are readers with
an alphabetic L1 orthography (Persian, Spanish). Brown and Haynes (1985) showed that
Japanese speakers were faster at making same-different judgments about pairs of English
words than were Spanish and Arabic ones. However, they were the slowest group at
integrating the sound-symbol information necessary for naming.
Similarly, in a study using the same language groups as the Brown and Haynes
53
(1985) study, Koda (1988) presented a phonological task in which participants were
asked to identify which of two pseudo words was homophonic with a real English word
(e.g., thare, theer), and an orthographic task in which they were asked to determine which
of the two homophonic items was the correct spelling of an English word (e.g., room,
rume). She found that Japanese participants were more severely impaired by the absence
of orthographic information in the phonological task than were the participants from
alphabetic groups. However, because of their L1 orthography, Japanese and Chinese
readers make greater use of visual processing than do readers of English (Grabe &
Stoller, 2002). There is evidence that these differences lead to variations in reading rates
and fluency in lexical processing. Grabe and Stoller (2002) argue that differing
orthographies are more or less transparent with respect to letter-sound relationships.
Thus, readers will process words differently in different kinds of orthographies.
Reading Skills in L1 and L2
Different studies show that there is a strong relationship between a person’s L1
and L2 reading abilities. Brown and Haynes (1985) examined the effects of L1 reading
experience on L2 component skills development among Arabic, Spanish, and Japanese
ESL learners. The data revealed that although Japanese subjects were superior to the
other groups in terms of visual discrimination, this advantage was not sustained in a
visual–to-sound translation task. This confirms that L1 reading is a significant force in
modeling processing mechanisms.
Some other studies have pointed to the need for efficient lower-order processes
for proficient L2 reading comprehension (Koda, 2005). Researchers regard the efficiency
54
of lower-order processes, such as word identification and syntactic parsing, as an
important condition for the development of L1 reading comprehension (Stanovich, 1991;
Perfetti, 1985). They also view it as important in the development of L2 reading
comprehension (Koda, 2005).
It is obvious that L2 students, who have already experienced learning to read in an
L1, come with the linguistic knowledge of it. This can either support the positive transfer
of reading skills or become a source of interference. Students who are weak in L1 literacy
abilities cannot be expected to transfer many supporting resources to L2 reading contexts.
Furthermore, L2 learners who do not know how to read in L1 might miss some
fundamental skills and L2 reading strategies. These include pre-reading skills of
directionality, sequencing, the ability to distinguish shapes and sounds, and the
knowledge that written symbols correspond to sounds and can be decoded in terms of
order and direction. Other challenges LD learners might face include the inability to
activate semantic and syntactic knowledge or to recognize some rhetorical devices and
understand text structure. LD learners might not be able to learn to use cues to predict
meaning or be aware of the variety of purposes for reading and strategies, such as
experimenting, hypothesizing, creating, and constructing meaning. Perhaps, most
importantly, finding self-confidence in reading may be difficult.
Moreover, illiterate L1 students lack the experience needed to transfer appropriate
reading strategies. Since literate L2 students bring with them varying underlying
attitudes toward L2 reading, they shape their own perceptions of how well they can
perform tasks and, consequently, cement their success as readers.
55
The Relationship between Reading Strategies and Reading Ability
Honsefeld (1977) reported a study in which learners with high and low reading
abilities were asked to self-report as they read unassigned texts. The study found that
those with a high reading ability tended to keep the meaning of the passage in mind, read
in broad phrases, skip words, and possess a positive self-concept. Low reading-ability
students, however, lost the meaning of sentences as they decoded them. They read word-
by-word or in short phrases, rarely skipped words, turned to the glossary for the meaning
of new words, and had a poor self-concept as readers.
The Saudi context also bears evidence of the impact of target language
proficiency on the type of reading strategies used by EFL learners. Al-Seweed (2000), for
example, found that readers’ level of language proficiency influenced the type of word-
solving strategies used by Emmam University seniors in Saudi Arabia. Emphasizing the
tendency of young and poor L1 readers to use different monitoring and compensatory
strategies, Ryan, et al. (cited in Garner, 1987) maintained that “comprehension problems
among poor readers … are due to their less strategic involvement in the process of
reading” (p. 29). Garner’s conclusion was that young children and poor readers lack the
ability of adults and good readers to engage in activities leading to cognitive progress or
to monitor it.
Since these findings were not consistent throughout the different groups of
students (vocational, semi-academic, academic, and disabled), the researchers suggested
that the examined factors seem to influence the reading ability of each group of students
differently. Another study used native and ESL university students’ self-rated
56
proficiency as the factor through which reading proficiency is assessed (Sheorey &
Mokhtari, 2001). There were significant differences between students with high and low
abilities with regard to their use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies. However,
there were no significant differences observed in their use of support strategies. Anderson
(1991) also examined the reading strategies of Spanish-speaking students enrolled in
intensive ESL classes as they took a reading comprehension test and two other tests on a
pair of academic passages. A simple regression showed that a significant relationship
existed between the number of strategies used in the think-aloud protocol and the
participants’ reading comprehension scores. Reporting the use of more reading strategies
was associated with higher reading comprehension scores. No specific strategies were
found to relate to successful reading comprehension. The study also showed that no
specific strategy or groups of strategies contributed more to their successful
comprehension of the texts (p. 468).
Although the above-reviewed studies show that better L2 readers tend to be more
strategic, there seems to be no simple or linear relationship between the use of reading
strategies and reading comprehension. After enumerating several early case studies
showing differences in the strategy used by high- and low-ability readers, Carrell, et al.
(1998) maintained that these differences are not fixed. Brantmeier (2002) has also found
no relationship between the types of strategies that second-language learners use and their
level of reading comprehension. This view entails using or reporting good reading
strategies which do not always result in successful comprehension. It also indicates that
57
when it comes to comprehension, what matters most is how effectively readers use these
strategies rather whether they actually do.
Finally, one might hypothesize that learners’ not knowing how to read in L1
might miss some fundamental reading skills and L2 reading strategies. These include,
but are not limited to, pre-reading skills of directionality, sequencing, the ability to
distinguish shapes and sounds, and the knowledge that written symbols correspond to
sounds and can be decoded in terms of order and direction.
Reading Strategies Studies in Saudi Arabia
Over the past two decades, numerous studies have detailed the role of learners'
strategies in a variety of L2 domains. Influenced by this trend in reading research, some
Saudi researchers tried to probe this issue from different sides. In this section, I will
briefly mention some of the recent studies on reading strategies that were done in Saudi
Arabia. For each study, I will highlight the purpose, the methodologies, and the results.
Effects of training ESL Saudi female students on some reading strategies, by Madkhali,
S., 2005.
This study investigates the effectiveness of teaching four reading strategies on
EFL Saudi female students' reading comprehension and on their reported use of these
strategies. The strategies taught were two “global” strategies: finding main ideas and
prediction. Global strategies are those related to the general approach and
comprehension of the reading passage. The other two strategies were problem-solving
strategies: word analysis and guessing the meanings of words. The study aims at
investigating the impact of teaching global and problem-solving strategies on
58
preparatory- level students' reading comprehension. It also measures how preparatory-
level students' perception of use of strategies develops after teaching these strategies to
the students.
There were three groups of beginning students representing two treatment groups
and one control group. Each treatment group received training in different strategies.
The number of students in the global strategy group was 24, and in the problem solving
strategy group it was 22 students. Students in the control group numbered 21.
Measurements consisted of reading comprehension tests and a questionnaire about
reading strategies conducted over pre- and post-training stages.
The results obtained led to three findings. First, the two training groups (global
and problem solving) experienced only non-significant improvement in their post-reading
comprehension when compared with the control group. This suggests that reading
strategy training did not significantly improve their reading comprehension. Second,
there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups in their gain in
reading comprehension. Third, there were various results regarding students’ perception
of using the strategies they were taught. Students mostly showed a decrease in their
perception of using strategies either significantly or non-significantly except for two
strategies which were using context clues and prediction.
EFL multiple-choice vocabulary test-taking strategies, and construct validity
by Addamegh, K., 2004
This study explores Test-Taking Strategies (TTS) and their impact on test
construct validity. To accomplish its objectives, this research operated within the
59
sequence framework in which a number of variables represent Presage factors, which are
likely to influence the test Process embodied in the TTS. These variables, in turn, may
affect the test Product, that is, the test scores obtained (PPP model). The investigation
also explored the influence on the dependent variable of two other independent variables:
size of EFL lexicon as determined by Nation's vocabulary test and general level of EFL
proficiency as measured by TOEFL. A process-oriented methodology via triangulated
verbal data collection was utilized to gain insight into test takers' mental processes when
tackling an EFL multiple-choice vocabulary test.
The analysis revealed 62 different TTS of six types: managing the test as a whole,
reading the stem, handling the gap, examining the alternatives, selecting a response, and
strategies after choosing an answer. It also revealed that test takers with lower L 2
proficiency were more active TTS users than the higher proficiency test takers. There was
a clear difference between the two types of test stimuli, mainly in some of the TTS used
to select a response. It was also found that there was a marked effect of the TTS on the
test product.
The relationship of L1 reading and L2 language proficiency with the L2 reading
comprehension and strategies of Saudi EFL university students, by Mushait, S., 2004
This thesis examined the relationship of L2 reading comprehension (L2RC) and
L2 reading strategies (L2RS) with L1 reading ability (L1RA), L2 vocabulary (L2V) and
L2 grammar (L2G) in the EFL context. It also examined whether the potential effects of
L1RA, L2V, and L2G on L2RC were affected by the language difficulty of the texts
being read in the L2, on the one hand, and students' L2 language proficiency (L2LP)
60
levels, on the other. The relationship between L2 reading strategies (L2RS) and L2RC
was also investigated.
The participants in the study were studying English for their bachelors' degrees at
King Khalid University in Saudi Arabia in the same department but at different levels of
L2LP. Two hundred and twenty-two students were given four tests to measure their
L1RA, L2RC, L2V, and L2G. In addition, a subgroup of 28 of this group participated in
think-aloud reporting intended to identify L2 reading strategies.
Both quantitative and qualitative procedures were used for analyzing the data:
descriptive statistics, multiple regression and repeated measures (ANOVA), as well as
detailed qualitative analysis of the L2RS used by two subjects--one of a high level of
L2LP and the other at a low level. The quantitative analyses revealed that L1RA, L2G,
and L2V contribute significantly to L2RC. L2LP (L2V and/or L2G) was the best
predictor of L2RC for subjects at a low level of L2LP. The analysis of the think-aloud
protocols showed that the more proficient subjects, on the whole, tend to use more top-
down than bottom-up strategies, whereas the reverse is true for the less proficient
subjects. This result strongly suggests that L2LP does not only affect the product of L2
reading, but also the process. The result also demonstrated that top-down reading
strategies positively affect L2RC, whereas bottom-up strategies negatively affect it.
The relationship between vocabulary size, reading strategies, and reading
comprehension of EFL learners in Saudi Arabia, by Al-Nujaidi, A. 2003.
The main purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between EFL
learners' perceived reading strategies, vocabulary size, and reading comprehension. The
61
study examined how certain learner variables, such as gender and the amount of
extensive reading, may affect this relationship. The participants in the study were 226
(117 females and 109 males) first-year university students enrolled in seven different
higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia. Participants completed a reading strategies
survey and took a vocabulary size test (Schmitt, 2000) and a reading comprehension test.
In general, Saudi EFL first-year university students show a low reading ability
and an estimated small vocabulary size (500-700 word families), which is far below the
threshold level needed for reading un-simplified English texts. Except for a few
strategies such as critical reading, summarizing, using typographical aids, and noting text
characteristics, the participants reported using most of the reading strategies with high
and moderate frequencies. They also reported a significantly higher use of problem-
solving strategies. However, extensive reading was found to be an unpopular activity
among EFL learners in Saudi Arabia. Significant gender differences favoring females
were found in the participants' performance on the two tests and their reports of reading
strategies use.
The effects of proficiency and training on the word-solving strategies of Arab EFL
readers, by Al-Seweed, M., 2000.
In this study, the researcher used four different data-gathering methods: individual
think aloud (ITA), pair think aloud (PTA), immediate interview (IIN), and later interview
(LIN) to investigate the following: (1) word-solving strategies (WSS) used by native
Arabic undergraduate students at the university level in Saudi Arabia before training on
WSS, regardless of their proficiency levels, compared with their use after training while
62
reading an English text; (2) WSS used by high-proficiency level (HP) and low-
proficiency level (LP) students before and after training on WSS when encountering an
unknown word while reading; and (3) any differences between the four different data
gathering methods (ITA, PTA, IIN and LIN) with respect to the data collected and use of
WSS.
The findings suggest that the students used a range of word-solving strategies:
contextual and morphological guessing, appealing for assistance (i.e. asking someone,
using the dictionary and asking each other), and skipping, both before and after WSS
instruction. There is an indication that training on WSS can increase the use of all
observed WSS. The results also demonstrate that both high and low proficiency level
students used only immediate contextual clues in guessing.
Self-Regulation
What Is Self-Regulation?
Baumeister and Vohs, (2004) define “self-regulation” as “the exercise of control
over oneself, especially with regard to bringing the self into line with preferred (thus,
regular) standards”(p.2). The terms “self-regulation” and “self-control” are being used
interchangeably, although some researchers make subtle distinctions between the two.
Some researchers use “self-regulation” more broadly to refer to goal-directed behaviors,
whereas “self-control” may be associated specifically with conscious impulse control
(Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). According to Schmeichel and Baumeister (2004) “self-
regulation” refers to both conscious and unconscious alteration of responses by the self,
while “self-control” implies a more deliberate and conscious process of altering the self’s
63
responses. Self-regulation involves the self acting on itself to alter its own responses.
Regulation of the self’s response is usually initiated with the goal of achieving a desired
outcome, such as improving one’s mood or avoiding an undesirable outcome.
Self-regulation has two sides: an applied side and a theoretical side. However, the
study of self-regulation is influential only when it contributes to both theory and practice.
Schmeichel and Baumeister (2004) claim that almost every major personal and social
problem affecting large number of modern citizens involves some kind of failure of self-
regulation. For example, underachievement in work and school may stem from a lack of
regulation to make one self-study. Procrastination, which leads to increased stress and
inferior performance quality, stems from a failure to keep one’s work progressing on a
proper schedule (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). Self-regulation also may play a mediating
role in some clinical phenomena such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders.
The theoretical importance of self-regulation holds place in self-theory and, thus,
is a key to understanding many different aspects of psychological functioning
(Schmeichel & Baumeister, 2004). Psychologists have recently come to appreciate that
no account of the self can be anywhere near complete without an understanding of how
the self maintains control over itself and makes the adjustments that it deems best to
maintain harmony with its social and physical environment.
Self-Regulatory Strength
“Self-regulatory strength” refers to the internal resources available to inhibit,
override, or alter responses that may arise as a result of physiological processes, habit,
learning, or the press of the situation (Schmeichel & Baumeister, 2004). The self-
64
regulatory strength model was first suggested by Baumeister, Heatherton, and Tice
(1994) and elaborated on in subsequent work. It proposes that faulty self-regulation
results from a lack of self-regulatory resources. The core of the self-regulatory strength
model is that the ability to regulate responses actively relies on a limited self-regulatory
resource. When regulatory resources have been depleted, self-regulation failure is more
likely (Schmeichel & Baumeister, 2004).
Language Learning Strategies and Self-Regulation
Researchers face a problem in distinguishing strategic learning from “ordinary”
learning (Tseng, et al., 2006). Weinstein et al. (2000) offer three critical characteristics of
strategic learning: it is goal-directed, intentionally invoked, and effortful. According to
Tseng, et al. (2006), these attributes could be true about motivated or difficult learning, in
general, without any “strategic” element. Therefore, Cohen (1990) highlights another
important element, the element of choice. He argues that it is a fundamental
characteristic of these strategies that they are voluntarily employed by the learner.
However, choice in itself is not enough to distinguish strategic from non-strategic learner
behaviors because students tend to make several choices concerning their learning
process that are obviously not strategic in nature (Tseng, et al., 2006).
Moreover, Riding and Rayrer (1998) argue that learners engage in strategic
learning if they exert purposeful effort to select, and then pursue, learning procedures that
they believe will increase their individual learning effectiveness. This argument reflects
what Tseng, et al. maintain, which is that it is not what the learners do that makes them
strategic learners but rather the fact that they put creative effort into trying to improve
65
their learning (Tseng, et al., 2006). These implications cause a shift from focusing on the
product (actual techniques employed) to the self-regulatory process itself and the specific
learner capacity underlying it.
Although the shift to self-regulation study resulted in the broadening of the
learning strategies perspective, it did not solve the problem of what learning strategies
are. Self-regulation is made up of a series of integrated and interrelated microprocesses of
which learning strategies is only one. Other components include goal setting, strategic
planning, action plans and action schemata, monitoring and metacognition, action control
volitional control mechanisms, strategic tactics and operations, effective time
management, self-motivational beliefs, evaluation and self-reflection, receiving and
processing feedback, experiencing pride and satisfaction with one’s efforts, and
establishing a congenial environment (Kuhl & Goschke, 1994; Winne & Perry, 2000;
Zeidner, Boekaerts, & Pintrich, 2000).
Summary
The previous discussion indicates that both language proficiency and reading
strategies and skills are contributing factors to L2 reading. However, to understand the
impact of the major contributing factors in the L2 reading process, L2 reading research
needs to examine language proficiency and reading skills and strategies simultaneously.
The major problem with examining the impact of language proficiency on L2 reading
rests with the different types of language proficiencies, which often make it difficult to
explore this relationship more closely. Given this difficulty, several researchers have
examined the relationship between reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge,
66
considering this to be the most relevant linguistic construct to L2 reading (Laufer, 1989;
Qian, 1999, 2002). To examine the other contributing variable, that is , the reading
factor, the reading strategies employed by L2 learners during the reading process are
usually explored. Therefore, this study is a further step to gain more information on how
Saudi EFL learners’ use of reading strategies affects their comprehension.
Although the perceived reading strategies of the different reading proficiency
groups are considered in this study, no significant differences in strategy use among these
groups, or significant high correlations between strategy use and reading comprehension,
are expected. However, given the homogeneity of the participants in this study, which
reduces the chance of variation caused by unknown variables, tendencies to use certain
strategies more or less frequently by the different reading proficiency groups may be
indicative of a relationship between reading strategies and reading proficiency.
67
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
Trochim and Land, (1982) define research design as an approach to integrate
various elements of a research project in a consistent and coherent fashion in order to
address a predefined set of study questions. A methodology is a set of techniques and
procedures employed by the researcher to construct a systematic plan to achieve defined
research objectives (Glatthorn, 1998). Therefore, this chapter aims to describe the design
and methodology used in conducting the study. It seeks to justify the choice of research
methods employed during the research project since there are various options for
conducting research,.
Research Questions
The present study explored the use of reading strategies by Saudi EFL college-
level students. The study also investigated the relationship between students’ use of
reading strategies and their reading comprehension achievement in English as a foreign
language. Finally, the study explores the Saudi students’ perception of other factors that
might affect their EFL reading comprehension. This study focused on studying three
types of reading strategies: Planning (before-reading), attending (while-reading), and
evaluating (after- reading) strategies. Types of reading strategies were measured using
the Reading Strategies Questionnaire (RSQ) that the researcher had designed and field-
tested. The study attempted to answer the following research questions:
68
1. What reading strategies are mostly used by Saudi EFL learners in Saudi public
universities? This research question sought to identify the most widely used
strategies by Saudi learners to aid comprehension.
2. Do reading strategies (planning, attending, and evaluating) predict college-level
Saudi students’ achievement in English reading comprehension as a foreign
language?
3. How does Saudi students’ perception of reading for comprehension contribute
to understanding their use of reading strategies?
Research Design
The researcher found that the most appropriate design for the study was mixed
research methods, which involved using a survey to gather information for scientific
purposes from a sample of a population (questions 1 & 2), and volunteer interviews to
collect qualitative data in the study (question 3). A mixed-method research design is a
procedure for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study, and for
analyzing and reporting data based on a priority and sequence of information (Creswell,
2002).
One purpose of this study was to explore and then to examine the relationship
between Saudi college-level students’ use of reading strategies, and their comprehension
in EFL. The researcher collected and analyzed quantitative data obtained from the survey
and collected and analyzed qualitative data obtained from the interviews. Qualitative
results help in interpreting the findings of a primarily quantitative study and explain any
unexpected results that arise from the quantitative study. Qualitative data also helps in
69
answering the third question by gaining information about other intervening factors that
Saudi students perceive as having great effect on their EFL reading comprehension.
Survey research has many advantages. It is helpful in describing the
characteristics of a large population. One advantage of using a survey is the ability to
reach a large number of respondents with little effort and resources (Dillman, 2000). No
other method of observation is capable of providing such broad-spectrum insight.
Surveys, especially self-administered, are relatively inexpensive as they can be
administered from a distance using mail, e-mail, or telephone. Consequently, very large
samples are feasible, and this increases the likelihood of statistically significant results
even when multiple variables are investigated; standardized surveys ensure that uniform
data from various groups can be collected, interpreted, and then compared in a precise
method (Babbie, 1990; Fowler, 2002).
The nature of this study called for the use of a survey research method, which is
considered an effective and professional way of gathering enough data to examine the
present status of reading strategy use by Saudi EFL college-level students. A written
questionnaire and interviews were used to collect the data in this study.
Operational Definition of the Variables
Independent variables: The study’s main independent variable was the use of reading
strategies. This variable consisted of three subscale variables: planning strategies (before
reading), attending strategies (while reading), and evaluating strategies (after reading).
These variables were measured by using a six-point Likert scale ranging from 6 (strongly
agree), 5 (agree), 4 (partly agree), 3 (slightly disagree), 2 (disagree) to 1 (strongly
70
disagree). The questionnaire consisted of 34 items. Respondents were instructed to
select only one answer to each item. Questionnaire items that measured planning
strategies were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 29, and 30. Items that measured attending strategies were
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,13,14,15,16,17,18, 31, 32, 33, and 34; items that measured evaluating
strategies were 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. See appendix D: Reading
Strategies Questionnaire (RSQ).
Within the same 34 items five facets of self-regulation: commitment, emotional,
metacognitive, satiation, and environmental control were measured. Commitment control
items were 1, 2, 13, 16, and 17. Emotional control items were 11, 14, 19, and 20.
Metacognitive control items were 7, 8, 9, and 10. Satiation control items were 12, 16, 33,
and 34. Finally, environmental control items were 3, 29, 30, and 31.
Dependent variable: The only dependent variable in this study was students’ reading
comprehension in English as a foreign language. To measure this variable, the researcher
used a standardized reading test (a retired version of the TOEFL reading section).
TOEFL’s reading section is a standardized test that measures the ability of foreign
learners to read and comprehend a text in a specific time. The test used in this study
consisted of two comprehension passages followed by seven multiple-choice reading
comprehension questions on each one (See appendix A: Reading Comprehension Test).
The maximum value for the score that can be obtained from the reading comprehension
test was 14 points and the minimum score was zero.
71
The Setting of the Study
Population
The target population of this study was Saudi college-level students studying
English as a foreign language in Saudi universities. Subjects of the study were selected
from four major universities and teachers’ colleges in the Kingdom: King Abdul-Aziz
University in Jeddah, King Faisal in Dammam, Teachers’ Colleges in Jeddah and
Teachers’ College in Al-Ahsa. The researcher contacted chairpersons in these universities
and colleges beforehand and obtained permission to include their students as subjects of
this study (See appendix E: Permission Request Letter).
The researcher used a mixture of different levels to make sure that he had a
convenient and representative sample. One hundred and forty students of different
academic levels were included in the study. There were 35 freshmen, 35 sophomores, 35
juniors, and 35 seniors from King Faisal University, Teachers’ College in Al-Ahsa, King
Abdul-Aziz University, and Teachers’ College in Jeddah, respectively. Faculty members
of each department helped decide which class was going to be used according to their
level.
Sample
This study was conducted in four major universities and colleges in Saudi Arabia.
King Abdul-Aziz University, King Faisal University, Teachers’ College in Jeddah, and
Teachers’ College in Al-Ahsa. Stevens (1996) points out that the sample size is
determined by several factors: the desired power, alpha level for controlling Type I error
(the probability of rejecting the null hypotheses when it is true), effect size, and the
72
number of variables used in the analysis (regression model). Since the major design of
this study has one independent variable with three sub-variables, and only one dependent
variable, a desired power of 0.8, medium effect size (f2 = 0.15), and an alpha level 0.05
was maintained for this study. Using Faul, Bucher, Erdfelder, and Lang (2008), the
desired sample for this study maintaining these criteria is 77 students. However, the
researcher decided to have a sample of 140 students to ensure more adequate and
reasonable effects; the power with N = 140 is .98.
Teaching English Language in Saudi Arabia
English is taught in Saudi schools as a foreign language, mostly for instructional
purposes. All the Saudi schools use the same syllabus and the same textbooks assigned
and distributed freely by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education In Saudi
Arabia is responsible for revising textbooks, evaluating them and approving changes in
them. Changes made in the textbooks usually rely on research conducted by the ministry
itself. The textbook is the main teaching material on which the students, as well as the
teachers, rely. It usually contains dialogues and variety of passages, which often include
expository, narrative, and descriptive subjects.
Current Classroom Reading Practices in Saudi Arabia
From personal experience as a former teacher and supervisor of EFL, I can attest
that a typical English reading lesson in Saudi schools includes the following procedures:
1. The teacher presents new vocabulary, structure, and language functions
through a variety of techniques. Some teachers drill these functions
73
extensively before students encounter them in the reading passage, and some
do that after students read the text and ask about those structures.
2. The students read the text silently for a few minutes and try to remember as
much as they can. Some teachers write guided questions on the board, asking
students to keep these questions in mind when they read silently and try to
find their answers (reading for purpose).
3. The teacher asks questions. Sometimes these questions are written on the
board, as mentioned above, and sometimes they are not. Most of the answers
for these questions can be taken directly from the text the students already
read. It is unusual for teachers to ask high-level questions such as critical and
analytical ones.
4. The teacher then reads the text aloud while the students listen. A tape recorder
is sometimes used instead. Students follow in their books and in lower levels,
the whole class, or individual groups read out loud after the teacher.
5. The teacher goes back to the comprehension questions to make sure that every
one’s answer is clear. Sometimes, the teacher might ask more questions about
the text.
6. If there is any time left in the teaching period, the teacher may ask individual
students to read aloud two or three lines of the reading text. The teacher
usually selects only the best students for this practice.
One of the principal merits of this classroom procedure is that the students are
coping with a familiar text that helps them understand what they read. However, there is
74
little here to help students become efficient readers or to give them effective training in
the process and its cognitive and metacognitive strategies.
Instrumentation
Reading Strategies Questionnaire (RSQ)
Learning strategy use has typically been measured by self-report questionnaires,
since strategic learning is driven by mental processes that are not often directly
observable. In the L2 field, the Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL),
developed by Oxford (1990), is the most frequently used instrument for assessing
language-learning strategy use. The SILL instrument measures frequencies of strategy
use (ranging between “never” to “always”); thus, these items measured are behavioral
ones. According to Tseng, et al. (2006), since scale items are behavioral ones, we cannot
assume that there is a linear relationship between the individual item scores and the total
scale scores. For example, EFL readers might generally have a good memorizing
strategy, yet, they have low scores for some of the items in the memory scale. Oxford and
her colleagues recognized this problem. In her words:
Low reported strategy use is not always a sign of ineffective
learning. Also, reportedly high-frequency use of strategies does
not guarantee that the learning is successful. In a casual class
observation, one might see some learners working eagerly and
using many strategies, but . . . do not employ those strategies
effectively. Studies relying solely on frequency data may miss
this point. Because frequency results alone do not explain
75
everything about strategy use, it is necessary to include other
indices of learners’ behaviors that reflect their decision-making.
‘The more, the better’ is not always the case in strategy use
(Cited in Tseng, et al., 2006 p. 84).
Thus, the scales in the SILL are not cumulative, and computing mean scale scores
is not justifiable psychometrically. In the SILL scale, achieving a high score is made
possible by using many different strategies, which means that quantity matters. This
assumption contradicts the results of Ehrman, Leaver, and Oxford (2003), which
indicated less able learners often use strategies in a random, unconnected, and
uncontrolled manner. It also contradicts the learning strategy theory, which indicated that
in strategy use, it is not the quantity but the quality of the strategies that is important
(Tseng, et al., 2006).
Therefore, the structure and content of the current instrument is based on Tseng,
et al.’s (2006) Self-Regulating Capacity in Vocabulary Learning Scale (SRCvoc). The
researcher developed the new instrument using the same theoretical construct that Tseng
et al. (2006) used. This is a system of self-regulatory strategies from the area of
educational psychology developed by Do¨rnyei (2001). This system consists of five
facets. These are:
Commitment control: Which helps to preserve or increase the learners’ original goal
commitment.
Metacognitive control: Which involves the monitoring and controlling of concentration.
76
Satiation control: Which helps to eliminate boredom and to add extra attraction or
interest to the task.
Environmental control: Which helps to eliminate negative environmental influences and
to exploit positive environmental influences by making the environment an ally in the
pursuit of a difficult goal (Tseng, et al., 2006).
Emotional control: Which concerns the management of disruptive emotional states or
moods, and the generation of emotions that will be conducive to implementing one’s
intentions (self-encouragement; using relaxation and meditation techniques).
The Reading Strategies Questionnaire (RSQ) was used as a major instrument in
this study. This questionnaire was used to gain insights into Saudi students' use of
reading strategies. The RSQ was designed by the researcher and was reviewed by a panel
of judges that included college professors, teachers, and graduate students. The
researcher also pilot-tested the questionnaire to ensure its validity and reliability. The
questionnaire uses a six-point Likert scale. Subjects were asked to respond to each
statement by choosing from among six answers: (strongly agree), (agree), (partly agree),
(slightly disagree), (disagree) or (strongly disagree). The RSQ consists of 34 statements
related to the three types of reading strategies and the five measures of self-regulation
capacity. Strategy types are planning, attending, and evaluating, while the self-regulating
components are commitment, emotional, metacognitive, satiation, and environmental
control.
77
Design of the Questionnaire Instrument (RSQ)
Information for this study was gathered through written questionnaire (appendix
D) with follow-up interviews. A comprehensive survey design addresses four main
components: target population, sampling, survey instrument, and data collection (Fowler,
2002). The researcher placed the demographic data section towards the end of the
questionnaire. Dillman (2000) asserted that although demographic questions are easy to
answer, they are not particularly interesting. Questionnaires rarely begin with
demographic questions. Babbie (1990) also maintained that requests for boring
demographic data (age, sex, and the like) should generally be placed at the end of the
self-administered questionnaire.
In addition, personal information within the demographic section of the
questionnaire was reduced. Dillman (2000) asserted that obtaining personal information
from participants in a survey, such as questions regarding annual income or sexual
behavior, may deter respondents from answering or completing the survey and thereby
affect the response rate. The questionnaire consisted of 34 items. All items were six-
point Likert scale ones, where participants had to select only one answer.
Piloting of the Questionnaire
Dillman (2000) indicated that piloting has always been an important part of
questionnaire design. Piloting and evaluation of the content and format of the
questionnaire is an essential step to identify the problematic issues in the questionnaire.
The piloting process enables the researcher to determine whether he or she is asking the
78
right questions in the most effective way and whether the participants are able to answer
the questions properly.
The survey instrument was tested for both validity and reliability. In early
November 2007, a pilot study was conducted to determine the reliability, validity, and
usability of the instrument. The questionnaire was distributed to 30 EFL students at Ohio
University. They were told that they would not be part of the original study. The
participants were given sufficient time to complete the questionnaire and return it along
with their comments and feedback. From their responses, unclear questions were
identified and corrected. Twenty-eight out of thirty participants returned the completed
questionnaire with a response rate of 93%. The demographic characteristics of the
respondents of the pilot study were comparable to the intended population of this study.
More details are shown in Table 1
79
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of the Participants in the Pilot Study.
Countries Respondents Gender
Saudi Arabia 10 M
Jordan 6 M
Palestine 4 F
Sudan 2 F
Morocco 1 F
Kuwait 2 M
Egypt 3 F
Total 28
Validity of the Instrument
A number of measures were taken to ensure instrument validity, which is defined
as, “[the] degree to which a study accurately reflects or assess the specific concept that
the researcher is attempting to measure” (Sudman & Bradburn, 1982). The idea of
validity to questionnaire design refers to the steps taken by the researcher to insure
clarity, wording, and ordering of the questions. After receiving the comments and
corrections, the questionnaire was edited to meet their expectations. One measure of
validity as described by Smith and Glass (1987) is that of face validity. In describing
face validity, they stated that "researchers attempting to support the interpretation of the
80
measurement and its connection to the construct will seek professional judgment that
there is a plausible connection between the surface features of the measure's content and
the construct as theoretically defined" (p.107).
To ensure face validity, the researcher presented the RSQ to a group of 10 Saudi
EFL teachers, 10 EFL OU graduates, and three OU faculty members. They were given
the first version of the instrument to comment on the clarity of items and suggest
changes. Some changes regarding the wording of statements, their order, and clarity
were made to the final draft (see appendix D). Content validity was achieved by
submitting the questionnaire to experts in the field of educational research and the field of
teaching English as a second/foreign language to examine and evaluate the content and
the format of the questionnaire before the final version was sent out to the participants.
Reliability of the Instrument
Reliability refers to the degree to which the instrument measures phenomena in a
consistent manner. According to Oppenheim (1966),"reliability refers to consistency;
obtaining the same results again" (p.69). This consistency can itself be measured in the
form of a statistical coefficient of reproducibility, often Cronbach’s alpha, which is
similar to a correlation coefficient.
Cronbach’s alpha test was run to measure the internal consistency and the
reliability of the questionnaire. The alpha coefficient for the overall questionnaire (34
items) was at 0.87, which is considered a high level of reliability. According to Mueller
(1986), a well-constructed scale should have a reliability coefficient of 0.80 or higher.
Cronbach’s alpha was also run for the subscales of the questionnaire (types of reading
81
strategies). The alpha coefficient was 0.71 for planning strategies (8 items), 0.81 for
attending strategies (16 items), and 0.79 for evaluating strategies (10 items). Alpha
coefficients, calculated by deleting each item from the scale, were also examined, but
none of the increases in the alpha coefficients was significant enough to justify the
removal of any of the items.
The Reading Comprehension Test
The reading comprehension test was the second major instrument that was used in
this study. The reading comprehension test consisted of two reading comprehension
passages followed by seven multiple-choice reading comprehension questions on each.
This reading test was part of the TOEFL test, a standardized test for ESL/EFL students
who intend to study in the United States and Canada. Throughout the time being used
TOEFL tests show high reliability and validity (Pierce, 1994). The two reading passages
were about rainforests and human memory (see appendix B: Model Answers). The
maximum point for the test was 14 (one point for each correct answer).
Interview
The last procedure utilized in this study was a qualitative interview of
volunteering participants. This procedure was mainly utilized to address the third
research question (How does Saudi students’ perception of reading for comprehension
contribute to understanding their use of reading strategies?). By interviewing a sample of
Saudi students (10 students), the researcher wanted to check to what extent Saudi
students are aware of the different types of reading strategies (planning, attending, and
evaluating); how often they use these strategies; how aware they are of the five facets of
82
self-regulations; and finally what other factors they perceive as having great impact on
their comprehension.
Each interview lasted for 30 minutes and was conducted after collecting
quantitative data. Interviewees were not part of the quantitative data sample. Interviews
took place in different places (cafes, houses, schools) based on students’ preferences.
During each interview, the researcher allowed the interviewee to talk about how he/she
approaches reading a text in English. During this time, the researcher tape-recorded the
interviews which he then transcribed (see appendix C for a sample of interview
transcription). When the interviewee indicates that he/she is done and has no more to say,
the researcher followed-up with some questions to check the students’ awareness of the
reading strategies types, their use, and the self-regulation facets.
Since the main purpose of collecting qualitative data was to learn more about
students’ perceptions of reading strategies that might affect their achievement, a final
question in each interview was: “What activities do you think are most important in
aiding your comprehension?” Again, follow up questions were used to bring up some of
the types and facets so the interviewee could talk about them.
Data Collection
The design of this study was an explanatory mixed-method design, perhaps the
most popular form of mixed-method designs in educational research. An explanatory
mixed-method design--also called a two-phase model (Creswell, 2002)-- consists of first
collecting quantitative data and then collecting qualitative data to help explain or
elaborate on the quantitative results. The rationale for this approach is that the
83
quantitative data and results provide a general picture of the research problem; more
analysis, specifically through qualitative data collection, is needed to refine, extend, or
explain the general picture (Creswell, 2002) in this design:
1. The mixed method researcher places a priority on quantitative data collection
and analysis. This is by introducing it first in the study and having it represent a
major aspect of data collection.
2. The mixed method researcher collects quantitative data first in the sequence.
This is followed by the secondary qualitative data collection. Researchers often
present these studies in two phases, with each phase clearly identified in headings
in the report.
3. The mixed method researcher uses the qualitative data to refine the results from
the quantitative data. This refinement results in exploring a few typical cases,
probing a key result in more detail, or following up with outlier or extreme cases
(p. 566).
The design has the advantage of clearly identified quantitative and qualitative
parts, an advantage for readers as well as for those designing and conducting the study.
The design also captures the best of both quantitative and qualitative data to obtain
quantitative results from a population in the first phase, and then refine or elaborate these
findings through an in-depth qualitative exploration in the second phase. The difficulty
in using this design, however, is that the researcher needs to determine what aspect of the
quantitative results to use in the follow-up. In addition, this design is labor intensive, and
it requires both expertise and time to collect both quantitative and qualitative data.
84
Mixed- method studies require extensive data collection (Bryman, 1988), more than the
amount required to conduct a study that is either quantitative or qualitative (cited by
Creswell, 2002, p. 568). The costs and amount of time needed may be prohibitive for a
single researcher.
After obtaining the IRB approval (appendix F), chairpersons in the departments of
English Language and Literature in the four universities and colleges involved in the
study were contacted by fax to obtain permission for using students in their departments
as subjects in this study (see appendix E for a sample of permission request letter). After
obtaining the permission involved in this research, study completion and data collection
were obtained through the following procedures:
1. Faculty members in each department helped in assigning participants of the study
according to their academic levels. Forty students from each department
represented an academic level: 40 freshmen were assigned from King Faisal
University, 40 sophomores were assigned from Teachers’ College in Al-Ahsa, 40
juniors were assigned from King Abul-Aziz University, and finally 40 seniors
were selected from Teachers’ College in Jeddah. After excluding the incomplete
answers, the desired sample number of 140 students was obtained.
2. Each subject involved in the study had a copy of both instruments for the study:
The reading strategies questionnaire (RSQ), and the reading comprehension test.
3. Directions and procedures of the study were explained to the subjects very
thoroughly by the researcher. Instructions included number of items, purpose of
85
the test, and format of the test. The researcher also answered students' questions
before they began.
4. The researcher ensured that each subject was willing to participate in this research
voluntarily and assured subjects that all the information and data obtained from
participation in this research were confidential, and would only be used for
research purposes.
5. Subjects were asked to read the reading passages and respond to the reading
comprehension tests.
6. After finishing the reading comprehension test, subjects were asked to respond to
the reading strategies questionnaire (RSQ). The researcher ensured that all
subjects had the appropriate time to respond to the items in the questionnaire.
7. Study conduction took between 50 and 60 minutes.
8. Finally, subjects' responses on the reading strategies questionnaire and the reading
comprehension test were scored.
Missing Data
Because the researcher administered the collection of data in all four universities,
there was no major problem with missing data in this study. Only 10 students reported
that they were not ready to complete the reading test and the questionnaire, after they had
started working on them. These respondents were excluded from the data. Another 10
respondents were excluded because their materials were either incomplete or more than
one answer was checked for same items.
86
Participants’ Demographic Data
Demographics of the respondents revealed that 45% of them were females (63)
and 55% were males (77). Ages of the respondents ranged from 18 to 24. Respondents
represented equal percentage from each academic level: 25% freshmen, 25%
sophomores, 25% juniors, and 25% seniors. All participants were majoring in English
language and literature.
Data Analysis Procedures
Before answering each of the research questions, normality tests were run on all
the relevant variables. This procedure was done to make sure that parametric tests were
the most appropriate for this analysis. In addition, correlations among different variables
in the study were run. When doing so, the researcher adopted Cohen (1988), who
specifies correlation coefficients below 0.30 to have weak effect, coefficients above 0.30
to have moderate effect, and coefficients of 0.50 and above to have large effect size.
After making sure of the normality of data and deciding which tests to use, the
researcher analyzed the data to address the two research questions posed in the beginning
of this chapter. Means and standard deviations were run to answer the first research
question (“What reading strategies are mostly used by Saudi EFL learners in Saudi public
universities?”). Moreover, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to check if
the difference among the subjects’ reported use of the three different types of reading
strategies, if any, was significant. When addressing the second question, “Do reading
strategies (planning, attending, and evaluating) predict Saudi EFL learners’ reading
comprehension?” the researcher used standard multiple regression analysis to find out if
87
there was a correlation between the use of certain reading strategies and reading
comprehension level.
In the following chapter, I will present the results of the current study. The
analysis of the data follows the order of the two research questions stated in this chapter.
88
CHAPTER FOUR
Results
The current study seeks to explore Saudi EFL students’ use of reading strategies;
how Saudi students’ agreement on the importance of using reading strategies affects their
reading comprehension scores; and what other factors they perceive as having great effect
on their EFL reading comprehension. The study utilizes both qualitative (RSQ and
reading comprehension test) and quantitative (interviews) methods to gain information
about students’ perception of reading strategies and their comprehension level. The three
main research questions were:
1. What reading strategies are mostly used by Saudi EFL learners in Saudi public
universities?
2. Do reading strategies (planning, attending, and evaluating) predict Saudi EFL
learners’ reading comprehension?
3. How does Saudi students’ perception of reading for comprehension contribute to
understanding their use of reading strategies?
Reliability of the Instrument
Cronbach’s alpha test was rerun to measure the internal consistency and the
reliability of the questionnaire after collecting the data. The alpha coefficient for the
overall questionnaire (34 items) was at 0.89, which is considered a high level of
reliability ( Mueller, 1986). Cronbach’s alpha was also run for the subscales of the
questionnaire (types of reading strategies). The alpha coefficient was 0.75 for planning
89
strategies (8 items), 0.82 for attending strategies (16 items), and 0.83 for evaluating
strategies (10 items).
Validity of the Instrument
The 34 items of the Reading Strategies Questionnaire scale (RSQ) were subjected
to principal components analysis (PCA) using SPSS Version 15. Parallel analysis
(Watkins, 2000) was used to determine the number of factors to extract. It showed that
there were four factors explaining 24.5%, 6.3%, 5.7%, and 5.2% of the variance
respectively. An inspection of the scree plot (appendix G) revealed a break after the
fourth component. By looking at the loadings (appendix H), it seems that the first
(largest) factor is ‘evaluative’. The second factor is ‘attending’ (portion); 10 of the
sixteen attending items load heavily at this dimension. After looking back at these items,
it was found that unlike the fourth factor items, all of these items start with the phrase
‘while I am reading’. The third factor is ‘planning’; 5 of the 8 planning items load at this
factor.
The fourth factor is ‘attending’ (portion); four of the attending items and one
planning item load heavily at this dimension. What makes this factor different is the fact
that the wording of its statements is different from all other items; any item the previous
29 ones includes either ‘before I start reading’, ‘while I am reading’, or ‘ after I finish
reading’. In the contrary, item number 30, which is supposed to be planning item, could
be interpreted as attending item. It reads: “When I am reading and the learning
environment becomes unsuitable, I try to sort out the problem.” Besides, three of the
other four items did not start with the phrase ‘while I am reading’. Difference in wording
90
might have contributed to the loading of these five items in a separate factor. Therefore,
factor analysis suggests that there is some evidence of the construct validity of the scale.
Descriptive Statistics for Factors
The descriptive statistics for the three types of reading strategies consisted of the
mean scores and standard deviations of items related to each factor. These aggregate
scores on factors were used in the multiple regression analysis to answer the second
research question. The aggregate scores of self-regulation items were also used to answer
the question about the predictability of these factors of students’ comprehension level.
Table 2 displays the descriptive means and standard deviations of the three types of
reading strategies.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for Reading Strategies Types.
Variables M SD
Planning strategies (before reading) 4.68 .62
Attending strategies (while reading) 4.48 .70
Evaluating strategies (after reading) 4.54 .74
In addition to the descriptive statistics of the three types of reading strategies,
correlations among these variables and the overall strategy use were run. Table 3 shows
these correlations.
91
Table 3
Bivariate Correlation Among the Three Types of Reading Strategies and Overall Strategy
Use
Variables 1 2 3 4
Planning strategies (before reading) 1 .52* .49* .71*
Attending strategies (while reading) 1 .68* .92*
Evaluating strategies (after reading) 1 .86*
Overall Strategy Use 1
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
All subparts of the reading strategy show a significantly strong correlation with
the overall mean of perceived strategy use: planning r = 0.71, p<.001 , attending r = 0.92,
p<.001, evaluating r = 0.86, p<.001. The three types of reading strategies have also
shown fair correlations among themselves. The planning strategies had a significant
correlation with both the attending strategies r = 0.52, p<.001 and the evaluating
strategies r = 0.49, p<.001. The attending strategies also had a significant correlation with
the evaluating strategies r = 0.68, p<.001. This means that there was a moderate
relationship among the different types of reading strategies reported by EFL Saudi
learners in the current study. These correlations among the three independent variables
were conducted to make sure that each variable is reasonably independent of the other.
To learn more about the Saudi students’ reading comprehension test scores, visual
banner feature in SPSS was used to classify participants based on their raw scores (Table
92
4). Students who scored between 2 and 6 were considered low, between 7 and 10 were
considered medium level, and between 11 and 14 were considered high level of
comprehension. The overall mean of the reading test was 8.5, which means that the
average student got 8 out of 14 questions correct. In general, 31 students were classified
as having a low level of comprehension (22.15%), 77 others were classified as having a
medium level of comprehension (55%), and 32 students were found to have a high level
of comprehension (22.85%).
Table 4
Distribution of the Sample According to Their Reading Comprehension Test Scores
Level of Comprehension Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
Low (← 6 ) 31 22.1 22.1
Medium ( 7 – 10 ) 77 55.0 77.1
High ( 11→ ) 32 22.9 100
Total 140 100
Assumptions of Multiple Regression Analysis
Before running the multiple regression, all assumptions were tested. These
assumptions were sample size, multicollinearity and singularity, outliers, normality,
linearity, homoscedasticity, and independence of residuals.
Sample Size
93
The assumption of sample size is central to the generalizability of results. Results
based on a small sample size may not generalize with other samples. Stevens (1996)
recommended a ratio of 15 cases per factor for a reliable regression equation. With a
sample size of 140 and three factors, this ratio for the study was approximately 46.6:1.
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) also gave a formula for calculating sample size
requirements that take into account the number of independent factors that we wish to
use. They advise that N > 50 + 8m, where m = number of independent factors. With m =
3 in this study, we have N = 50 + 8* 3 = 74. Thus, with a sample size of 140, this
condition is met.
Test for Multicollinearity Assumption
The second assumption of multiple regression refers to the relationship among the
independent factors (multicollinearity). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) explain that
multicollinearity exists when the factors are highly correlated (r ≥ .9). Singularity occurs
when one factor is actually a combination of other factors. Therefore, multiple regression
is sensitive to both multicollinearity and singularity. Stevens (1996) assumes that in
multiple regression, a high multiple correlation coefficient, R, requires that independent
factors correlate highly with the dependent factor while simultaneously have
low multicollinearity among themselves. Multicollinearity is important because the
violation of this assumption limits size of the multiple correlation coefficient, R, because
of shared variance among overlapping factors. It also makes the determination of the
importance of independent factors difficult, because of the overlaps, and, finally, it
increases the variance of the regression.
94
The assumption of multicollinearity was checked from the Collinearity
Diagnostics table in the SPSS output, using Tolerance and VIF. Tolerance gives an
indication of how much the variability of a specified factor is not explained by the other
factors in the model, and it is given by TOL = 1-R2 for each factor, where R is the
multiple correlation, which is also called coefficient of determination, and R2 is an
estimate of the effect size. If TOL < 0.1, it implies that the multiple correlation with other
factors is high. The corresponding condition for VIF is that VIF scores are required to be
less than 10 for the multicollinearity assumption to be valid. From Table 5, the Tolerance
scores for all the three factors (reading strategies types) range from 0.48 to 0.69, while
the range of VIF values is from 1.44 to 2.05. These Tolerance and VIF values showed
that there were no violations of the multicollinearity assumption, since TOL > .10 and
VIF < 10 for all factors.
Table 5
Tolerance and VIF for Regression Factors
_____________________________________________
Model Tolerance VIF
_____________________________________________
Planning .69 1.44
Attending .48 2.05
Evaluating .50 1.96
_____________________________________________
95
Test for Normality, Linearity, Homoscedasticity, and Independence of Residuals
Normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and independence of residuals all refer to
different aspects of the distribution of scores and the nature of the underlying
relationships between factors (Pallant, 2005). Residuals are differences between the
obtained and predicted dependent variable scores (students’ comprehension scores). The
normality assumption is met when the residuals are normally distributed about the
predicted dependent variable scores (reading comprehension). The linearity assumption is
met when the residuals have a straight-line relationship with the predicted variable
scores.
Finally, homoscedasticity is satisfied when the variance of the residuals about the
predicted dependent variable scores are the same for all predicted scores (Pallant, 2005).
The scatter plot (Figure 1) of the standardized residuals shows that the residuals
are roughly rectangularly distributed, with most of the scores concentrated in the center
(along the horizontal line y = 0). This distribution means that the assumptions of linearity
and homoscedasticity are met. The normal probability plot (Figure 2) confirmed this
result. It is clear that the scores lie in a reasonably straight diagonal line from bottom left
to top right.
96
3210-1-2-3-4
Regression Standardized Predicted Value
2.5
0.0
-2.5
Regr
essi
on S
tand
ardi
zed
Resi
dual
Scatterplot
Dependent Variable: CS
Figure 1 : Scatter Plot of Regression Standardized Predicted Values against Regression
Standardized Residuals (Reading Strategies Types).
1.00.80.60.40.20.0
Observed Cum Prob
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Expe
cted
Cum
Pro
b
Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual
Dependent Variable: CS
Figure 2 : Normal P-P Plot
Checking Outliers, Extreme and Influential Points
As defined by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), outliers are cases that have a
standardized residual of more than 3.3 or less than -3.3. From the scatter plot (figure 1), it
is evident that there is no serious concern with outliers. Outliers were also checked by
97
inspecting the Mahalanobis distances that are produced by the multiple regression
program. To identify which cases were outliers, the critical chi-square was determined
first using the number of independent variables as the degrees of freedom. Tabachnick
and Fidell (2007) suggest that the critical value for three independent variables is 16.27.
The Malhalanobis distance value was 16.61, which is not too far from the critical value.
After going back to the data, cases 78 and 86 had observed distances greater that the
critical value of 16.27. Looking back into the data set, it was found that case 78 scored
the lowest value (mean = 2.53) for factor 2 (attending); however, the case was retained
since the value was within the acceptable range (1,6). Case 86 scored the lowest value
(mean = 2.88) on factor 1 (planning). This case was also retained since the value was
within the acceptable range.
From the scatter plot (Figure 1), it is evident that there were no cases that had
standardized residuals values above 3.0 or below -3.0. The Residual Statistics table
(appendix I) also confirmed that there were no cases with standardized residual greater
than 3.3 or less than -3.3. From these various tests, it is clear that outliers are not a
concern in this study.
Finally, influential points were checked using Cook’s Distances. According to
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), cases with values larger than 1 are a potential problem.
From the table of Residual Statistics (appendix I), it is clear that no case had a Cook’s
distance greater than 1 (Max = 0.14). Therefore, influential points are not a serious
concern in this study.
98
First Research Question
The first research question was “What reading strategies are most often used by
Saudi EFL learners in Saudi public universities?” This research question sought to
identify the most widely used strategies by Saudi learners to aid comprehension. To
answer this question, descriptive statistics were calculated to determine the means of use
for each strategy. Strategy use was determined based on the degree of agreement of each
participant on the importance of each statement in affecting his/her reading
comprehension. A mean of 4 and above was considered a high level of use, since it
indicates that a student largely agreed on the importance of the strategy. A score of 3.00-
3.99 was considered a low level of use, since this implies that a student almost disagreed
on the importance of using certain reading strategies that may affect his/her
comprehension. Means of students’ agreement on each item are shown in appendix J.
All but two of the item results fall into the high level (appendix J). The high
category encompassed 32 strategies. Only two attending strategies fall in the low level;
however, even these two items have means above 3.5. This result means that EFL Saudi
learners perceive all reading strategies reported in the questionnaire as important in
improving their comprehension. It also implies that they may be inclined to use these
strategies when reading English texts. When the overall mean of reading strategy use
was examined, the highest overall mean was 5.88 while the lowest was 2.88. The
majority of the participants were high strategy users, which means that EFL Saudi
learners almost always use a variety of reading strategies (planning, attending, and
99
evaluating) while reading English text. The overall mean of the sample (the mean of the
means) was 4.41 with a standard deviation of 0.58.
In addition, the means and standard deviations were calculated for the reading
strategy types. The means and standard deviations of the subjects’ reported use of
planning, attending, and evaluating strategies are reported in Table 2. In general, the
subjects showed more use of planning strategies than the other two. They also seem to
use evaluating strategies more frequently than attending strategies.
Moreover, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to check if this
difference among the subjects’ reported use of the three different types of reading
strategies is significant. The Multivariate test (as part of ANOVA output) indicated a
significant difference between the means of the three categories with large effect size,
Wilks’ Lambda = 0.574, F= 51.245, p = 0.000, η2 = .426. When run as a post-hoc test, the
paired-sample t-test showed significant differences among the three means. It showed
that there is a significant difference between planning strategies and the other two
categories; between planning and attending t = 9.107, p = 0.000, η2 = 0.373; between
planning and evaluating t = -2.385, p = 0.018, η2 = 0.039; and between attending
strategies and evaluating strategies t = -7.186 p = 0.000, η2 = 0.270.
In conclusion, the analysis conducted to answer the first research question showed
that EFL Saudi learners use almost all the reading strategies (planning, attending, and
evaluating). In more specific, paired-sample t-tests, it was shown that Saudi learners use
planning strategies more than attending strategies and evaluating strategies. It is also
very noticeable, from the descriptive statistics in appendix J, that EFL Saudi learners
100
perceived the reading environment as the most important factor in their reading process.
In addition, evaluating strategies were more widely used by Saudi students than attending
strategies.
Second Research Question
The second research question was “Do reading strategies (planning, attending,
and evaluating) predict college-level Saudi students’ achievement in English reading
comprehension as a foreign language?” To answer this question, the relationship
between these strategies and comprehension level were examined using standard multiple
regression analysis. Standard multiple regression analysis helps in deciding which one of
the predictors (independent variables), if any, has the ability to predict the dependent
variable (predicted). Independent variables were planning strategies, attending strategies,
and evaluating strategies. The dependent variable was students’ reading comprehension
scores. Students’ comprehension level was measured using a retired version of the
TOEFL reading section. The maximum score expected was 14 and the lowest one was 0.
Only four students got the full mark (14) in the test, while three others received the
lowest score (2).
Test of significance of the combined factors.
A standard regression analysis was conducted to determine the relationship of a
linear combination of Factors 1 through 3 with students’ reading comprehension scores.
The standard regression model summary table (Table 6) indicated that the test was not
statistically significant (F (3.136) = 0.783, p = 0.506 (>0.0005); R2 = 0.017; Adjusted
(R2) = 0.005 at α =0.05. The value of the multiple correlation, R, which indicates how
101
well the independent factors combined relate with the dependent factor (comprehension
score), was R = 0.13. The adjusted R2 = 0.005 means that all the factors combined
accounted for 0.5% of the variance in the dependent factor, reading comprehension score.
Table 6
Standard Regression Model Summary
Model R R2 Adjusted Std. Change Statistics
R2 Error R2 F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change Change 1 .13 .01 .005 2.67 .01 .783 3 136 .506 Predictors: (Constant), Planning, Attending, Evaluating
Dependent Variable: CS
To make sure that the correlations among the three types of reading strategies did
not affect the regression model, correlations between each reading strategy type and
reading comprehension scores were obtained individually. No significant correlation was
found between the use of any type of reading strategies or the general use of reading
strategies and the reading comprehension level. Therefore, none of the three independent
variables (predictors) has the ability to predict Saudi students’ level of comprehension.
Therefore, the researcher concluded that in addressing the second question, Saudi
students’ perceived use of reading strategies did not predict their reading comprehension
score.
102
Third Research Question
The third research question was “How does Saudi students’ perception of reading
for comprehension contribute to understanding their use of reading strategies?” To
address this question, qualitative data were obtained by interviewing 10 Saudi students.
In addition to gaining more information about other factors that might affect students’
comprehension, the researcher aimed at checking the awareness of Saudi students of the
three types of reading strategies as well as the five facets of self-regulation. All
interviews were conducted after collecting the quantitative data using different samples;
interviewees did not participate in the quantitative data collection. The sample consisted
of 10 EFL Saudi learners, 5 males, and 5 females. Faculty members at each college
helped nominate students to contact based on their academic level: 3 freshmen, 3 juniors,
2 sophomores, and 2 seniors. The aim was to obtain a representative sample so the
information obtained from them could be representative of the population.
After contacting each person and asking about the appropriate way to do the
interview, the researcher specified a day for each interviewee. Female students were
interviewed on the phone due to religious and cultural barriers. Each interview lasted for
30 minutes, during which the researcher spent most of the time listening and tape-
recording. The researcher tried to put the interviewees in a situation of a reading task.
The interviewer made each interviewee assume that he/she had a reading assignment
(reading a book, chapter), after which someone would discuss his/her understanding of
the materials he/she had just read. The aim was that the interviewee understood that
he/she would be reading for comprehension, not just for finishing the task. The
103
researcher made sure that every interviewee was clear on the two questions before he/she
began talking. The interviewer avoided using the words “strategies”, “before reading”,
“while reading”, and “after reading” so as not to influence interviewees’ responses. The
two main questions were:
1. Tell me about ALL you will do once you decide that it is time to read until you
feel that you are ready for your discussion.
2. According to your own judgment, which of the practices that you do in order to
understand the English text affect your comprehension?
Follow-up questions were used to make sure that students were aware of other
types of reading strategies that they did not mention the first time. Follow-up questions
were also used to check the students’ awareness of self-regulation components and to
learn more about how they developed these reading strategies; did they learn them in
school while learning English, or did they transfer them from their L1? Finally, the
researcher was looking for some other intervening factors that EFL Saudi learners might
perceive as affecting their comprehension.
Qualitative results showed that Saudi college-level students seem to be aware of
all types of reading strategies (planning, attending, and evaluating). When talking freely,
with no guidance from the interviewer, 50% of the students reported using all three types
of strategies (planning, attending, and evaluating). This suggests that half of Saudi
students were aware of the importance of these strategies in facilitating their
comprehension; otherwise, they probably would not perceive them as important. The
other 50% of students mentioned different combinations of strategies: 30% mentioned
104
using only attending strategies, 10% mentioned planning and attending, and 10%
mentioned planning and evaluating. After the follow-up questions were given, 60% of the
students concurred on the importance of using planning strategies, 30% mentioned
attending strategies, and 40% mentioned evaluating strategies. These results suggest that
Saudi students might perceive other factors as affecting their comprehension more than
reading strategies.
When the interviewer asked the second question (“According to your own
judgment, which of the practices that you do in order to comprehend the English text
affect your comprehension?”), 80% of the students reported attending strategies as
having the most effective impact on their comprehension. This result is consistent with
the students’ awareness of the importance of reading strategies; 30% of the interviewees
reported using attending strategies from the first time with no guidance from the part of
the researcher. Ten percent of the students perceived planning as the most important
strategy type affecting their comprehension. In contrast, the quantitative data showed that
Saudi students reported using planning strategies more often than the other two. This
inconsistency might be explained by the overlap between these two reading strategy types
(planning and attending). For example, some students might consider skimming and
scanning as attending strategies, while others might perceive them as planning strategies.
This inconsistency might also be due to the fact, which I will discuss later in this
chapter, that 50% of Saudi students hate reading; their excessive use of planning
strategies might be to eliminate their boredom and get into the task. The last 10% of
105
students perceived evaluating strategies as the most important factor to affect their
comprehension.
In different situations, 50% of students mentioned that the techniques they used
after finishing reading helped them build mental structures (Schemata) of the new
information. Another 30% of students believed that summarization was the most
important factor in their final comprehension; in fact, 20% of them mentioned that they
used these summaries for their future revision of the text. Other factors that students
mentioned during the interviews as possibly having an impact on their comprehension
can be categorized into six themes: enthusiasm for reading, prior knowledge, role of
transfer, having a purpose for reading, time on task, and vocabulary size. A discussion of
these factors will be presented in chapter 5.
Additional Findings
Although the main focus of this study was to examine the relationship between
reading strategies and EFL Saudi learners’ comprehension level, the researcher decided
to do some additional analyses that might open windows for more future research.
Gender differences among EFL Saudi students in terms of comprehension level, as well
as strategy use, were investigated. Since the questionnaire was designed based on the five
facets of self-regulation (commitment, emotional, meta-cognitive, satiation, and
environmental control), the researcher decided to examine to what extent self-regulation
capacity affects reading comprehension level.
In order to do so, the researcher reused the data to generate five new variables:
commitment control, emotional control, metacognitive control, satiation control, and
106
environmental control. The same statements of the questionnaire reflected these five
facets of self-regulation. Commitment control statements were items 1, 2, 13, 16, and 17.
Emotional control statements were 11, 14, 19, and 20. Metacognitive control statements
were 7, 8, 9, and 10. Satiation control statements were 12, 16, 33, and 34. The
environmental control statements were 3, 29, 30, and 31. Finally, the researcher
examined the relationship between gender, self-regulation, and comprehension level.
Before doing further analysis to obtain additional findings, descriptive statistics of
the new five variables and correlations among them were obtained. Tables 8 and 9 show
the means and standard deviations of these factors and the correlations among them
respectively.
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for Self-Regulation Facets.
Variables M SD
Commitment Control 3.50 .62
Metacognitive Control 4.38 .74
Satiation Control 4.13 .81
Environmental Control 4.72 .82
Emotional Control 4.32 .88
107
Table 8
Bivariate Correlation Among the Five Facets of Self-Regulation and Overall Strategy
Use
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
________________________________________________________________________
Commitment Control 1 .20* .55* .56* .64* .68*
Environmental Control 1 .35* .36* .28* .61*
Metacognitive Control 1 .52* .56* .71*
Satiation Control 1 .64* .73*
Emotional Control 1 .79*
Overall Strategy Use 1
*Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
In addition, all the assumptions of regression analysis were rechecked to make
sure that there was no serious violation. Normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and
independence of residuals were checked using the scatter plot (appendix K) and the
probability plot (appendix L ).
The scatter plot of the standardized residuals shows that the residuals are roughly
rectangularly distributed, with most of the scores concentrated in the center (along the
horizontal line y = 0). This distribution means that the assumptions of linearity and
homoscedasticity are met. The normal probability plot (appendix L) confirmed this result.
108
It is clear that the scores lie in a reasonably straight diagonal line from bottom left to top
right.
Outliers were also checked by inspecting the Mahalanobis distances in the
residual statistics table (appendix M). These tables confirmed that there were no cases
with standardized residual greater than 3.3 or less than -3.3, which means that outliers are
not a big concern. Finally, the assumption of multicollinearity was checked from
appendix N using Tolerance and VIF. These Tolerance and VIF values showed that there
were no violations of the multicollinearity assumption, since TOL >0.10 and VIF < 10
for all factors.
Gender and Comprehension Level
To investigate the gender differences in comprehension level among EFL Saudi
students, a third question was posed: “Is there a gender difference in comprehension level
among Saudi college-level students?” An independent-sample t-test was conducted to
explore the impact of gender on comprehension level. There was a significant difference
in scores favoring female (M = 9.38, SD = 2.30) over male students (M = 7.79, SD =
2.55); t (138) = -3.66, p=.000, eta squared = 0.006. Descriptive statistics of both males
and females are reported in Table 11.
109
Table 9
Gender Differences in Means of Reading Comprehension
Variable Gender N M SD
Comprehension Score M 77 7.79 2.55
F 63 9.38 2.30
Gender and Reading Strategies
To investigate the gender differences among Saudi EFL learners in reading
strategy use, a fourth question was posed: “Is there a gender difference in strategy use
(use of planning, attending, and evaluating) among Saudi college-level students?” To
answer this question, a one-way between groups multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was performed to investigate gender differences in strategy use. Three
dependent variables were used: planning strategies, attending strategies, and evaluating
strategies. The independent variable was gender.
The results revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between
males and females on the combined dependent variables, F (3,136) = 2.39, p = 0.04;
Wilks’ lambda = 0.95; η2 = 0.03. When the results for the dependent variables were
considered separately, the only difference to reach statistical significance was reached by
evaluating strategies, F (1,138) = 7,185, p = 0.008, η2 = 0.04. An inspection of the mean
scores indicated that females reported higher levels of evaluating strategies (M = 4.72, SD
110
= 0.56) than males (M = 4.40, SD = 0.83). Table 12 shows the descriptive statistics of
reading strategies types for both male and female students.
Table10
Gender Differences in Means of Strategy Use
Variable Gender N M SD
Planning Strategies M 77 4.61 .59
F 63 4.76 .64
Attending Strategies M 77 4.37 .72
F 63 4.60 .66
Evaluating Strategies M 77 4.39 .83
F 63 4.72 .56
Gender and Self-Regulation
To investigate the differences in self-regulation capacity among EFL Saudi
learners, a fifth question was posed: “Are there any gender differences in self-regulation
capacity among EFL Saudi learners?” To answer this question, a one-way between
groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to investigate
gender differences in self-regulation. Five dependent variables (components of self-
regulation) were used: commitment, metacognitive, emotional, satiation, and
111
environmental control. The independent variable was gender. Preliminary assumption
testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity, univariate, and multivariate
outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices, and multicollinearity, with no
serious violation noted.
There was a statistically significant difference between males and females on the
combined dependent variables, F (3,136 ) = 2.39, p = 0.04; Wilks’ lambda = 0.95; η2 =
0.03. When the results for the dependent variables were considered separately, the only
difference to reach statistical significance was reached by emotional factors. F (4.772) =,
p =0.031, η2= 0.033. An inspection of the mean scores indicated that females reported
higher levels of emotional components of self-regulation (M = 4.50, SD =0.80) than
males (M = 4.17, SD = 0.93).
Qualitative Data on Self-regulation
When talking about self-regulation capacity, only 20% of the students mentioned
environmental factors as having effects on their comprehension. None of the students
mentioned anything about the other four components: metacognitive, satiation,
commitment, and emotional. To make sure that students were given a chance to comment
on their perception of these factors, the interviewer followed up by asking about each one
individually. Sixty percent of the students agreed that emotional factors play a role in
their comprehension. Fifty percent of this percentage was female students, meaning that
ALL female students perceived emotional factors as very important in their
comprehension. One female student said that she would never read if she were not in the
right mood: “One can do any physical activities while under emotional pressure, but
112
never do any mental activities” and “I consider emotional factors very important in my
enthusiasm to reading.” These statements show that female readers appreciate emotional
factors more than males do.
When asked about metacognitive factors, 50% of students concurred that they try
to keep in control of their comprehension while reading. Others said they do not usually
do this until the end. Thirty percent of the students also agreed that they keep their goal in
mind when reading a text in English (commitment). Another 20% of students emphasized
the importance of environmental factors, raising the percentage to 40% of the Saudi
students who perceived the environment as an important factor affecting their
comprehension. No person in the sample mentioned satiation factors, not even after
following up. This might be due to the interrelation between satiation and emotional
factors.
Summary of Major Findings
In this chapter, I have attempted to analyze all the available evidence needed to
answer the two main research questions. Some major findings emerged from the different
analyses. To conclude this chapter, I will list some of the major results.
1. EFL learners in Saudi Arabia are aware of almost all the reading strategies
examined in the current study and perceived using most of them. Quantitative
data as well as qualitative data confirmed this finding.
2. EFL learners in Saudi Arabia showed significantly more perceived use of
planning strategies than attending strategies and evaluating strategies.
113
3. Saudi EFL learners perceived the environment as the most important factor
affecting their reading comprehension. Both quantitative and qualitative data
confirmed this finding.
4. The reading comprehension level of Saudi EFL college-level students was
medium. The average participant was able to answer 8 of the 14 questions on the
reading comprehension test correctly.
5. No significant relationship was found between the perceived use of reading
strategies in general or any type of reading strategies (planning, attending,
evaluating) and comprehension level.
6. Enthusiasm for reading and time spent voluntarily reading both affect students’
approaches to the reading task. The qualitative data revealed that Saudi students
do not spend time on free reading outside of class.
7. A good percentage of Saudi students (40%) reported using the same reading
strategies when reading English texts as well Arabic ones.
8. The qualitative data revealed the importance of prior knowledge (schemata) on
students’ attitudes toward reading and on their comprehension.
9. The qualitative data revealed that EFL Saudi learners use a lot of supporting
reading strategies, such as asking questions and translation, to aid their
comprehension.
10. The qualitative data revealed that EFL Saudi learners greatly appreciate the
importance of having a purpose in mind before start reading.
114
11. The qualitative data suggest that EFL Saudi learners lack time management
strategies. They tend to read slowly to gain comprehension, which affects their
scores on the TOEFL.
12. Saudi students are not aware of the importance of self-regulation capacity in their
reading comprehension. Environmental factors were the only factors mentioned
by both female and male students as having a great effect on students’
comprehension.
13. Emotional factors seem to have a great impact on female students’ ways of
approaching the reading task, their commitment to accomplishing it, and their
reading comprehension.
115
CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations
Reading is a process that requires effort on the readers’ part if they want to
understand what they are reading. A considerable amount of research has been devoted to
understanding the processes that contribute to reading comprehension. This study was
conducted to explore Saudi students’ use of reading strategies and the effect of these
strategies on their comprehension.
Chapter five begins with an overview of the study followed by a discussion of the
findings. The chapter then presents additional findings obtained in the study. Finally, the
chapter provides some implications for reading instruction in Saudi Arabia, the
conclusion of the study, and recommendations for further research.
Summary of the Study and Discussion of Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine and determine how often EFL Saudi
learners in public universities use reading strategies to aid their comprehension when
reading English texts. It also aimed at investigating the relationship between the use of
reading strategies and level of reading comprehension. Finally, the study aimed at
exploring other factors that might affect Saudi students’ EFL reading comprehension.
Both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies were employed to
collect the data for this study. The quantitative data were collected through a Reading
Strategies Questionnaire (RSQ) that was completed by 140 Saudi students in four Saudi
public universities and colleges. Qualitative data were collected through structured
interviews consisting of two open-ended questions. Finally, students’ comprehension was
116
measured by using a retired version of the TOEFL reading test, which consisted of two
passages; 14 comprehension questions were asked on both passages.
The study was conducted in four major Saudi universities and teachers’ colleges:
King Abdul-Aziz University, King Faisal University, Jeddah Teachers’ College, and Al-
Ahsa Teachers’ College. The entire sample of the study was 160, and 140 respondents
completed the questionnaire and the test. The overall response rate was 87.5%. The
results of the study suggest that EFL Saudi learners are strategic readers. They almost
always use every type of reading strategies included in the questionnaire (planning,
attending, evaluating). This result was obtained after answering the first research question
(“What reading strategies are mostly used by Saudi EFL learners in Saudi public
universities?”). Further, it was found that Saudi students showed a greater disposition to
use planning strategies than attending and evaluating strategies. However, the qualitative
data, obtained to answer the third question, revealed that Saudi students perceive
strategies that they employ while reading (attending strategies) as having the greatest
impact on their comprehension.
These findings confirm those of Al-Nujaidi (2003) and Al-Seweed (2000). Al-
Nujaidi (2002) found that EFL Saudi learners reported using most reading strategies with
high and moderate frequencies. He also concluded that Saudi learners reported a
significantly more frequent use of problem-solving strategies. To read: Al-Seweed’s
(2000) findings suggested that both high and low proficiency Saudi students used a range
of reading strategies: word-solving strategies, contextual and morphological guessing,
appealing for assistance (asking someone and using the dictionary,), and skipping. These
117
findings imply that more attention on the part of EFL teachers should be given to
improve these strategies to enhance students’ ability to utilize them in different reading
contexts.
With regard to research question two (“Do reading strategies (planning, attending,
and evaluating) predict Saudi EFL learners’ reading comprehension?”), the results of the
multiple regression analysis showed that none of the reading strategies types had the
ability to predict students’ comprehension level. This finding does not mean that high-
comprehension level students are not strategic readers, however; it implies that the
opposite is not always true. The use of reading strategies does not guarantee a high level
of comprehension because some other factors may be considered as well.
As noted above, this finding from question two implies that there seems to be no
simple or linear relationship between the use of reading strategies and reading
comprehension. This goes along with the findings of Carrell, et al. (1998), Brantmeier
(2000), Anderson (1991), and Madkhali (2005). After enumerating several early case
studies on differences in the strategies used by high- and low-ability readers, Carrell, et
al. (1998) maintained that these differences are not fixed. Brantmeier (2000) also found
no relationship between the types of strategies that second-language learners’ use and
their level of reading comprehension. In addition, Anderson (1991) found that no specific
strategies were related to successful reading comprehension. His study also showed that
no specific strategy, or groups of strategies, contributed more to students’ successful
comprehension of the texts. Finally and more recently, Shaikah, (2005) has found that
even training Saudi students on the use of reading strategies does not significantly
118
improve their reading comprehension. All these findings indicate that the use of reading
strategies ( as reported by learners) does not always result in successful reading
comprehension.
The qualitative results obtained to answer the third question “How does Saudi
students’ perception of reading for comprehension contribute to understanding their use
of reading strategies?” revealed that Saudi students perceived other factors as having a
greater effect on their reading comprehension. Factors such as prior knowledge
(schemata), enthusiasm for reading, time on task, purpose for reading, and vocabulary
size were mentioned during interviews as having crucial effects on students’
comprehension.
Fifty percent of the Saudi students mentioned that they do not read unless it is
required; “We are a nation that does not read,” one of the interviewees said at the end of
the interview. This finding reflects Al-Nujaidi (2003) finding on reading among Saudi
students that extensive reading was an unpopular activity among EFL learners in Saudi
Arabia. He asserts that the majority of Saudi students do not voluntarily read English
materials outside of class.
This is a serious problem because enthusiasm for reading is a very important
characteristic of good readers. Cheng’s (1998) findings indicated that sociocultural
factors influence participants’ reading purposes and their use of different reading
strategies. Students who do not develop enthusiasm for reading in both L1 and L2 might
face serious challenges. They might lack the ability to activate semantic and syntactic
knowledge, recognize some rhetorical devices, obtain knowledge of text structure, learn
119
to use cues to predict meaning, and become aware of the variety of purposes for reading,
and reading strategies, such as experimenting, hypothesizing, creating, and constructing
meaning. Perhaps, most importantly, finding confidence in oneself as a reader may be
difficult for those readers.
Prior knowledge (schemata) was the second factor Saudi students mentioned as
affecting their comprehension. Sixty percent of the students referred to prior knowledge
of the topic as an important factor affecting their comprehension. Some students
mentioned that when they read they build structures (schemata) for the information to
help them understand it. Others compare and contrast what they are reading with their
previous knowledge. All 60% of the students reported that their knowledge of the topic
determines how they approach reading it. Thirty percent of the students reported that they
would quit reading if the topic was not interesting to them. This fact might affect
students’ scores on the TOEFL. Most of the passages on the TOEFL reading section are
on different topics: scientific, political, technical, social, and academic. Saudi students,
because they do not spend much time in free reading, find most of these topics boring and
difficult to understand simply because they have no prior knowledge of them.
Another theme obtained from the qualitative data is the role of transfer. Forty
percent of the students reported that they were familiar with reading strategies they use to
read English texts, even before they started learning English. They mentioned that in the
beginning it was difficult for them to transfer these strategies; however, with time and
practice it became easier. Examples of strategies Saudi students found feasible to transfer
were taking summaries, skimming, scanning, discussing with others, writing main ideas,
120
and asking questions. Some of the students mentioned that the only thing they adapted to
when learning English was the orthographic system. These findings go along with
Pritchard’s (1990) and Tang’s (2001). Both researchers indicated that bilingual students
used the same reading strategies across languages.
Having a purpose for reading was also perceived as having a great effect on EFL
Saudi learners’ comprehension. Fifty percent of Saudi students reported that they usually
do not start reading unless they have a purpose for the reading. They defined the reading
purpose as to answer comprehension questions about the topic they are approaching. One
female student said that she always anticipates and then writes the main idea of the
reading based on her prior knowledge of the topic, skimming the content, and scanning of
each reading section. She then writes some questions on the topic and starts reading,
looking for answers. Other students mentioned that they continually ask questions while
they are reading and write them in the margins.
These findings confirm Alsheikh’s (2002) and Feng’s and Mokhtari’s
conclusions. Al-Sheikh (2002) found that Saudi learners use more support reading
strategies such as asking questions and translation. Feng and Mokhtari (1998) found that
these supporting reading strategies are very popular among EFL learners. Finally, 40%
of the Saudi students reported that the strategies they use depend on the information they
are looking for; in fact, some of them said that they would tend to read paragraph by
paragraph (slow reading) in order to get what they are looking for.
Additionally, Saudi students seem to value the time given for the task. Fifty
percent of the Saudi students emphasized the importance of time given to finish the task
121
for achieving their comprehension goals. They insisted that they tend to take their time to
understand and comprehend what they read despite how much time it takes. This point
might also explain why Saudi students have scored the lowest on the TOEFL for the last
four years (Educational Testing Services, 2007). Reading test scores on the TOEFL do
not depend solely on students’ comprehension; a major part depends on the students’
ability to manage their time, with comprehension, to finish the task. Therefore, Saudi
students might not lack the knowledge and use of reading strategies, but they do lack
time- management strategies. Although no items on the questionnaire ask about this
strategy, it seems to be very important for educators to take this issue into consideration
when teaching reading.
Finally, vocabulary size was also found to have a substantial perceived
relationship with students’ comprehension. Sixty percent of the Saudi students mentioned
that their level of vocabulary affects their comprehension. They reported that they tend
to translate words that they don’t know because they feel anxious when reading
something they don’t understand. Only 10% said they would translate word by word,
while 90% of the students reported that they translate what they think of as important for
the overall understanding of the text.
What is interesting is the gender difference among students regarding using the
internet for translation. Forty percent of female students reported that they frequently use
the internet and online dictionaries to translate what they do not understand. One student
mentioned that she translates a whole sentence or text to get its general idea before she
returns to continue reading. On the other hand, 30% of male students perceived the
122
internet as a distraction that they would avoid. Differences in attitudes towards the role
of the internet in reading were not limited to translation but extended to evaluating
strategies. For example, 40% of female students would use the internet to find other
reviewers of the same topics and share their reviews with them. In contrast, 30% of male
students would avoid that for the fear that it would confuse them.
Lack of vocabulary size also affects students’ eagerness about completing the
task. They noted: “I always worry if I do not understand many words” and “One day I
was reading an article on Political Science and I started crying in the middle of the task,
because it was full of terminologies that I did not understand” These statements revealed
the perceived importance of vocabulary size on reading comprehension, which also
confirms Al-Nujaidi’s (2003) finding that there is a strong and significant relationship
between vocabulary size and comprehension level.
In conclusion, the findings of this study suggest that the use of reading strategies
does not help Saudi students improve their EFL reading comprehension. However, there
is mounting evidence that certain strategies are effective for improving L1/L2 reading
comprehension. The National Reading Panel report (2000) identified seven categories of
comprehension instruction that have solid evidence for their effectiveness on reading
comprehension. These seven include procedures that draw the reader into a deeper
engagement with the texts, such as comprehension monitoring, question generation and
question answering, the use of semantic organizers (students make graphic
representations of texts), summarizations, and understanding story structures. These
procedures, that the National Reading Panel report suggests are effective, are to some
123
extent consistent with the comprehension methods Saudi students reported during the
interviews. These findings imply that EFL teachers should not solely focus on teaching
reading strategies to enhance students’ comprehension. Other intervening factors,
mentioned in this study, need their attention as well.
Discussion of Additional Findings
Gender differences favoring female learners were evident in almost all analyses
conducted in the current study. Significant differences were found favoring female
students in overall strategy use, comprehension level, the use of evaluating strategies,
self-regulation capacity, and emotional control ability. The average Saudi female student
answered at least 9 questions correctly out of the 14 questions posed on the two passages.
Although there was no significant relationship between female students’ high use
of reading strategies and their high level of comprehension (compared with male
students), qualitative data showed that female students used more additional diverse
strategies to aid their comprehension than male students did. Saudi female students
employed modern technologies, such as the internet and online dictionaries, to help them
minimize time spent on translation and to discuss their understandings with a wide range
of people around the world. In contrast, male students perceived using the internet while
reading any English text as a distraction and a waste of time.
In addition, Saudi female students’ self-regulatory capacity surpassed male
students’. Female students seem to have better control of their emotional factors. This
means that, in addition to being superior in using a variety of reading strategies types
(question three), female students focused on the quality of these strategies. These findings
124
imply that EFL educators in Saudi Arabia must consider these gender differences when
planning for reading curriculum and instruction.
Implications for Reading Instruction in Saudi Arabia
Although the findings of this study suggested that strategy use does not help in
improving comprehension, EFL teachers can still help students improve the effectiveness
of reading strategies use. They can develop exercises that elicit information using some
targeted strategies. These exercises can be divided by the stage of reading at which they
occur (before, during, after).
In before-reading activities, teachers introduce students to a particular text, elicit or
provide appropriate background knowledge, and activate necessary schemata. During
these activities, students can discuss text type, brainstorm, review familiar stories, skim
and scan (for structure, main points, and future directions). EFL teachers should also
provide EFL learners with instruction opportunities to use essential reading strategies
such as purposeful reading. They need to make the purpose of reading clear to their
students. Whenever possible, using task-based instruction, this purpose should be
informational (Long & Crookes, 1992); students read to do something with the
information in the text. EFL teachers may also use online reading materials and electronic
texts that may emphasize the concept of purpose for the readers.
During-reading activities might include guessing word meanings by using context
clues, word formation clues, or cognate practice. Finally, after-reading activities help
check students' comprehension and then lead students to a deeper analysis of the text.
125
In addition, EF'L teachers should emphasize vocabulary learning at all levels. This
does not mean that vocabulary should be the only focus of language instruction; however,
given the impact of vocabulary knowledge on other language skills, vocabulary
instruction should warrant more attention, especially at early stages. All possible
vocabulary-learning techniques and materials, including graded readers, wordlists,
vocabulary cards, definitions, and all pedagogically sound vocabulary activities, should
be efficiently utilized to expand Saudi EFL learners’ vocabulary size as early as possible
in their education.
Finally, extensive reading is recognized for its role in expanding readers'
vocabulary and developing appropriate reading strategies and skills (Al-Nujaidi, 2003).
Research findings suggest that successful extensive reading programs should have the
following characteristics: students read large amount of material (Renandya, Rajan, &
Jacob, 1999); students usually choose what they want to read (Richards, Thatcher,
Shreeves, Timmons, & Barker, 1999); reading materials vary in terms of topic and genre
(Renandya & Jacobs, 2002); the material students read is within their level of
comprehension (Renandya & Jacobs, 2002); students usually take part in post-reading
activities; teachers read with their students, thus modeling enthusiasm for reading
(Campbell, 1989); and teachers and students keep track of students progress. Extensive
reading is found to offer many advantages such as: enhanced language learning in
spelling, vocabulary, grammar, and text structure; increased knowledge of the world;
improved reading and writing skills; greater enjoyment of reading; more positive attitude
toward reading; and higher possibility of developing a reading habit (Day & Bamford,
126
1998; Krashen, 1993; Nation, 1997). However, this important language activity seems
neglected among EF'L learners admitted to English programs in Saudi Arabia..
Therefore, EFL reading teachers at every level should encourage their students to
do extensive reading by assigning balanced amounts of outside readings. Using academic
incentives like extra credits, reading teachers can make sure that assigned materials are
read in whole. Apart from instructing EFL learners on important vocabulary items and
the use of certain reading strategies, reading classes should only be spent on intensive
reading activities and discussion of extensive reading assignments. Extensive reading is
believed to provide students with opportunities to apply the skills and strategies they
usually learn from intensive reading instruction (Carrel1 & Carson, 1997).
Developing reading skill should be the objective of all EFL programs in Saudi
Arabia. Reading materials, using graded readers that have a vocabulary and reading
fluency focus, such as Scholastic ELT and Oxford Bookworms, help in building students’
vocabulary and reading fluency (Nation, 2001). They could be used as serious
supplements to the EFL curriculum.
Conclusion
The current study aimed at exploring the use of reading strategies among Saudi
EFL learners; investigating to what extent the use of these strategies affects students’
reading comprehension; and exploring other intervening factors that might affect Saudi
students’ EFL reading comprehension. The study employed both quantitative and
qualitative methods to gain information about Saudi students’ perceived use of reading
strategies as well as their comprehension level. Although they seem to be potentially
127
strategic readers, Saudi EFL learners' comprehension level does not depend solely on the
use of reading strategies. Prior knowledge (appropriate schemata), enthusiasm for
reading, time on task, purpose for reading, and vocabulary are significant factors that
contribute much to the final comprehension. Therefore, the study suggests that EFL
educators in Saudi Arabia focus more on these factors in planning their reading
curriculum and instruction. The study also recommends that reading instruction should
supplement students with sufficient and balanced extensive reading activities.
Limitations of the study
The major limitations of the current research are as follows:
1. This study obtained data from four major Saudi universities and teachers’
colleges. Although the researcher tried to obtain a representative sample by
assigning the same number of students from different academic levels, much
caution should be exercised when generalizing its results without considering the
sample characteristics.
2. The fact that universities and teachers’ colleges did not provide equal number of
participants from each academic level prevented the researcher from being able
to see if the strategy use makes difference by grade level. Future studies might
seek a sample that contains participants from each academic level at each
institution.
3. The participants’ comprehension level was measured by using a TOEFL reading
test. This test might not be an accurate indicator of students’ comprehension level.
128
Other studies might employ oral recall techniques and oral comprehension
questions to gain more and accurate knowledge of students’ comprehension.
4. This study employed a new strategy questionnaire which was designed based on
the five components of self-regulation. To the researcher’s knowledge, this study
was the first one to use such a questionnaire to test the relationship between
strategy use and EFL reading comprehension. Although the instrument turned out
to be highly reliable in this study, it might need more investigation and
improvement to strengthen its reliability and validity. Like any other strategy
survey, this questionnaire did not measure actual use of strategies; it only
measures perceived importance of strategy use.
Recommendations for Further Study
The following are suggested for further study:
1. The high perceived use of reading strategies shown in this study by EFL learners
in Saudi Arabia should be subjected to more qualitative investigations. An
awareness of reading strategies may not necessarily mean that Saudi EFL learners
know how and when to use these strategies. A replication of the current study
using think-aloud protocols in examining the reading strategies of EFL learners
and recall tasks to measure students’ comprehension will provide important and
accurate details about the different aspects of EFL reading in Saudi Arabia.
2. The significant gender differences revealed by the current study in different
reading aspects call for more investigations of the reasons behind the superiority
of females' reading comprehension scores, strategy use, and self-regulation
129
capacity. Such investigations may also help educators understand some of the
major causes behind the low reading comprehension scores of Saudi EFL male
learners, compared with females.
3. The existing instrument indicates significant reliability. It is recommended that
this study be extended to include students from the other Saudi universities.
4. Studies are recommended that will investigate the role of the internet and online
reading in EFL reading comprehension.
5. More studies are recommended to investigate the effects of extensive free reading,
prior knowledge of the topic, vocabulary size, and other factors on EFL Saudi
learners’ comprehension.
6. The topic of self-regulation and its effect on SL/FL acquisition should be explored
in more studies.
7. Studies of self-regulation might focus on some of its components and their effects
on the acquisition of the language four skills (listening, speaking, reading and
writing).
130
REFERENCES
Abisamra, N. (2001). Teaching second language reading from an interactive perspective.
Retrieved October 4, 2007, from http://nadabs11.tripod.com/reading/#1.
Addamegh, K. (2004). EFL multiple-choice vocabulary test-taking strategies, and
construct validity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Essex, UK.
Aebersold, J., & Field, M. (1997). From reader to reading teacher: Issues and
strategies for second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Al-Akloby, S. (2001). Teaching and learning English vocabulary in Saudi Arabian
public schools: An exploratory study of some possible reasons behind students'
failure to learn English vocabulary. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Essex, UK.
Al-Arfaj, N. (1996). Factors causing reading difficulties for Saudi beginning students of
English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State
University─East Lansing.
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language
problem? In J.C. Alderson & A.H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign
language (pp.1-27). New York: Longman.
Al-Nujaidi, A. (2003). The relationship between vocabulary size, reading strategies, and
reading comprehension of EFL learners in Saudi Arabia. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Oklahoma State University─Stillwater.
131Al-Samani, A. (1999). Factors related to the reading difficulties of Saudi senior high
school students in English as a foreign language. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Kansas─Lawrence.
Al-Seweed, M. (2000). The effects of proficiency and training on the word-solving
strategies of Arab EFL readers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Essex, UK.
Al-Sheikh, N. (2002). An examination of the metacognitive reading strategies used by
native speakers of Arabic when reading academic texts in Arabic and English.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University─Stillwater.
Anderson, N. (1991). Individual differences in strategy use in second language reading
and testing. Modem Language Journal, 75, 460-72.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in
reading comprehension. In M. L. Karnil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255-291). Mahwah: NJ, Ehrlbaum
Associates.
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In M. L. Kamil, P.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(pp. 353-394). Mahwah, NJ:Ehrlbaum Associates.
Barnett, M. (1988). More than meets the eye: Foreign language reading: Theory and
practice. Tappan, NJ: Language in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED305829).
132Baumeister, R., & Vohs, K. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory,
and applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Baumeister, R., Heatherton, T. , & Tice, D.(1994). Losing Control: How and Why People
Fail at Self-Regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bensoussan, M. (1998). Schema effects in EFT, reading comprehension. Journal of
Research in Reading, 21, 213-227.
Bernhardt, E. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical,
& classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers.
TESOL Quarterly, 26, 319-343.
Brantmeier, C. (2002). Second language reading strategy research at the secondary and
university levels: Variations, disparities and generalizability. The Reading
Matrix: An International Online Journal, 3 (2) (pp.1-14). Retrieved October, 20,
2007 from http://www.readingmatrix.com/current.html.
Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. (2006). Building Knowledge Base in Reading. Newark,DE:
International Reading Association.
Breznitz, Z. (1997). Effects of accelerated reading rate on memory for text among
dyslexic readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 289-297.
Brown, T., & Haynes, M. (1985). Literacy background and reading development in a
second language. In H. Carr (Ed.), The development of reading skills (pp. 19–
34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London; Boston: Unwin
Hyman.
133Campbell, R. (1989). The teacher as a role model during sustained silent reading
(SSR). Reading, 23(3), 179-183.
Carrell, P. (1983a). Three components of background knowledge in reading
comprehension. Language Learning, 32, 183-207.
Carrell, P. (1983b). Some Issues in studying the role of schemata, or background
knowledge in second language comprehension. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 1, 81-92.
Carrell, P. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21
(3), 461-481.
Carrell, P. (1989). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern
Language Journal, 73, 121-13.
Carrell, P., Pharis, B., & Liberto, J. (1989). Metacognitive strategy training for ESL
reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 647-678.
Carrell, P., & Carson, J. G. (1997). Extensive and Intensive Reading in an EAP Setting.
English for Specific Purposes, 16, 47-60.
Carrell, P., Gajdusek, L., & Wise, T. (1998). Metacognition and EFL/ESL reading.
Instructional Science, 26, 97- 1 12.
Carrell, P., Devine, J., & Eskey, D. (Eds.). (2000). Interactive approaches to second
language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cheng, C. (1998). A descriptive study of reading strategies used by Chinese ESL
students from Taiwan, R. 0. C. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Kansas─Lawrence.
134Cheng, C. (2000). The relationship between metacognitive factors and reading
ability. Paper presented at the proceedings of the seventeenth conference on
English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, Taipei.
Chern, C. L. (1994). Chinese readers' metacognitive awareness in reading Chinese and
English. In N. Bird (Ed.), Language and learning (pp.401-421). Hong Kong:
Institute of Language in Education.
Clarke, M. (1979). Reading in Spanish and English. Language Learning, 29, 121-150.
Coady, J. & Huckin, T. (1997). Second language vocabulary acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. (1990). Language learning: Insights for learners, teachers, and
researchers. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral science .
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning, 42, 557-591.
Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson.
Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications
for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14(2), 175-1
87.
Day, R., & Bamford, J. (1988). Extensive reading in the second language classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Devine, J. (1983). ESL readers internalized models of the reading process. In J.
Handscombe, R. Orem, and B. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 The Question of
135Control. Selected Papers from the Annual Convention of Teachers of English
to Speakers of Other Languages, Toronto. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED275137).
Dillman, A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York:
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Do¨rnyei, Z. 2001. Motivational strategies in the language classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ehrman, M. , Leaver, B., & Oxford, R. (2003). A brief overview of individual differences
in second language learning, System 31: 313–30.
Eskey, D. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language
problems of second language readers. In P. Carrel, J. Devine, & D. Eskey
(Eds.) Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.73-92). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Educational Testing Services. (2007). Test and score data summary for TOEFL internet-
based and paper-based tests, Retrieved December 18, 2007 from
http://www.ets.org.
Faul, F., Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., & Lang, A. (2008). G*Power. (Version 3.0.10)
[Computer software]. Germany: Keil University.
Feng, X., & Mokhtari, K. (1998). Reading easy and difficulty text in English and
Chinese: Strategy use by native speakers of Chinese. Asian Journal of English
language Teaching, 8, 19-40.
Flavell, J. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new era of cognitive
development inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
136Fowler, F. (2002). Survey research methods. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Glatthorn, A. (1998). Writing the winning dissertation: A step-by-step guide. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the
Reading Specialist, 6, 126- 135.
Goodman, K. (1971). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. In P. Pimsleur
and T. Quinn (Eds.), The psychology of second language learning (pp.135-142).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, K., (1994). Reading, Writing, and Written Texts: A Transactional
Sociolinguistic View. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (eds.),
Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Gough, P. (1972). One second of reading. In J. Kavanagh and I. Mattingly (Eds.),
Language by ear and by eye (pp. 331-358). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press.
Gough, P. (1984). Word recognition. In M. L. Karnil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R.
Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp.225-253). Mahwah, NJ:
Ehrlbaum.
Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL
Quarterly, 25, (3), 375-406.
Grabe, W., Eskey, E., & Dubin, F. (1986). Teaching second language reading for
academic purposes. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publication Company.
137Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. (2002). Teaching and researching reading. New York:
Longman.
Haas, C., & Flower, L. (1988). Rhetorical reading strategies and the construction of
meaning. College Composition and Communication, 39, 167-83.
Honsefeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful
and non-successful second language learners. System, 5, 110-123.
Hosenfeld, C. (1979). Cindy: A learner in today's foreign language classroom. In: W.C.
Born, (Ed.), The foreign language learner in today's classroom environment.
Northeast Conference Reports (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
185 834).
Hsu, L. (2003). A study of relationships between feeling of knowing about English
reading strategy use and reading comprehension of Taiwanese college students.
National Changhua University of Education.
Johnson, P. (1 983). Assessing reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Kern, R. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 16, 441-461.
Koda, K. (1988). Cognitive process in second language reading: Transfer of L1 reading
skills and strategies. Second Language Research, 4, 133–156.
Koda, K. (1990). The use of L1 reading strategies in L2 reading: Effects of L1
orthographic structures on L2 phonological recoding strategies. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 12, 393–410.
138Koda, K. (2005). Insight into second language reading. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Krashen, S. (1993). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
Kuhl, J., & T. Goschke. 1994. A theory of action control: Mental subsystems, modes of
control, and volitional conflict-resolution strategies. In J. Kuhl and J. Beckmann
(eds), Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation. Seattle, WA:
Hogrefe & Huber.
Langer, J. (1982). The reading process. In A. Berger & H. A. Robinson (Eds.), Secondary
school reading: What research reveals for classroom practice (pp. 39-52). New
York: National Institute of Education.
Laufer, B. (1989). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C.
Lauren & M. Nordman (Eds.), Special language: Form human thinking to
thinking machines (pp.316-323). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lightbown P., & Spada N. (1997). How languages are learned. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Long, M. & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task-based syllabus design.
TESOL Quarterly, 26, 27-56.
Madkhali, S. (2005). Effects of training ESL Saudi female students on some reading
strategies. Unpublished dissertation, Ball State University─Muncie.
Martino, N. & Hoffman, P. (2002). An investigation of reading and language abilities of
college freshmen. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, (3), 310-318
139McDough, S. 1995. Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. London:
Edward Arnold.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, (2), 249–259.
Mueller, D. (1986). Measuring social attitudes: A handbook for researchers and
practitioners. New York: Teachers College Press. Mushait, S. (2004). The relationship of L1 reading and L2 language proficiency with the
L2 reading comprehension and strategies of Saudi EFL university students.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Essex, UK.
Myers, M., & Paris, S. (1978). Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 680-690.
Nation, P. (1997). The language learning benefits of extensive reading. Language
Teacher, 21, 13-16.
Nation, P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction. Retrieved on 06, 2008 from:
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.cfm
Norris, J. & Hoffman, P. (2002). Phonemic Awareness: A complex developmental
process. Topics in Language Disorders, 22, 1-34.
Oppenheim, A. (1966). Questionnaire design and attitude measurement. New York:
Basic Books.
140Oxford, R. 1990. Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
New York: Newbury House.
Palincsar, A. , & Brown, A. (1989). Instruction for self-regulated reading. In L. B.
Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current
cognitive research (pp. 19–39). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development Yearbook.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis
using SPSS., Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press
Paran, A. (1996). Reading in EFL: Facts and fictions. ELT journal, 50, 25-34.
Paron, A. (1997). Bottom-up and top-down processing. In P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, &
R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp.185-224). Mahwah, NJ:
Ehrlbaum.
Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pierce, B., 1994. The test of English as a foreign language: Developing items for reading
comprehension. In C. Hill, & K. Parry (Eds.), From testing to assessment: English
as an international language (pp. 39–60). New York: Longman.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should the comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In
M. Karnil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (pp.269-284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pritchard, R. (1990). The effects of cultural schemata on reading processing strategies.
Reading Research Quarterly, 25(4), 273-295.
141Purcell-Gates, V. (1997). There's reading...and then there's reading . National Center
for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, Retrieved November 20, 2007 from
http://www. rdg. ac. uk/AcaDepts/cl/slals/buptdown. Htm.
Qian, D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in
reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 282-238
Qian, D. (2002). Investigating the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and
academic reading performance: An assessment perspective. Language Learning,
52, 513-536.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ:Prentice-Hall.
Renandya, W. & Jacob, G. (2002). Extensive reading: Why aren’t we all doing it? In
Richards J.C. & Renandya W.A. (Eds.) Methodology in language teaching: An
anthropology of current practice (pp. 295-302). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Renandya, W., Rajan, B., & Jacobs, G. (1999). Extensive reading with adult learners of
English as a second language. RELC Journal, 30(1), 39-61.
Richards, P., Thatcher, D., Shreeves, M., Timmons, P. & Barker, S.(1999). Don’t let a
good scare frighten you: Choosing and using quality chillers to promote reading.
Reading Teacher, 52, 830-840.
Riding, R. and S. G. Rayner. 1998. Cognitive styles and learning strategies:
Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: David
Fulton.
142Rosenblatt, L. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R.B.
Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Rumelhart, D. (1977). Towards an interactive model of reading. In S. Dornic (Ed.),
Attention and performance (pp. 573-603). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B.
Bruce, and W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp.
33-58). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Samuels, S. (1994). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading,
revisited. In R.B. Ruddell, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models
and processes of reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Samuels, S., (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In Farstrup, E., &
Samuels, S. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Samuels, S. , and Kamil, M. (1984). Models of the reading process. In M. L. Kamil, &
Stanovich, K. (Eds.), Towards an interactive-compensatory model of individual
differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly,
16, 32-71.
Sarige, G. (1987). Comprehension of academic texts in the mother tongue and in a
foreign language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, School of Education,
Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
143 Schmeichel, B. & Baumeister, R. (2004). Self-Regulatory strength. In R.
Baumeister, & K. Vohs (eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory,
and applications (pp. 84-98). New York: Guilford Press.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schunk, D. (1994). Self-Regulation of self-efficacy and attributions in academic settings.
In D. Schunk, & B. Zimmerman (eds.), Self-Regulation of learning and
performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 75-96). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sheorey, R., & Mokhtari., K. (2001). Differences in the metacognitive awareness of
reading strategies among native and non-native readers. System, 29,431-449.
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and
learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Smith, M., & Glass, G. (1987). Research and evaluation in education and the social
sciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Towards an interactive-compensatory model of individual
differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly,
16, 32-71.
Stanovich, K. (1991). Changing models of reading and reading acquisition. In L. Rieben
& C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp.
19-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NF:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
144Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. (1982). Asking questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Susser, B., & Robb, T. (1990). Extensive Reading Instruction: Research and
Procedure. JALT Journal, 12, 161-185.
Tabachnick, B. and Fidell, L. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Taguchi, E, Gorsuch, G, & Sasamoto, E. (2006). Developing second and foreign
language reading fluency and its effect on comprehension: A missing link. The
Reading Matrix, 6, Retrieved December 12, 2007, from
www.readingmatrix.com/articles/taguchi_gorsuch_sasamoto .
Tang, Y. (2001). Self-reported strategy use while reading in English and Mandarin: A
study of four ESL students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Victoria, Canada.
Terry, P., Samuels, S., & Laberge, D. (1976). The effects of letter degradation and letter
spacing on word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior,15(5), 577-585.
Trochim, W., & Land, D. (1982). Designing designs for research. The Researcher, 1 (1),
1-6.
Tseng,W., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic
learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied
Linguistics, 27, (1), 78-102.
Upton, T. (1997). First and second language use in reading comprehension strategies of
Japanese ESL students. TESL-EJ, 3 (A-3), 1-27.
145Upton, T., & Thompson, L. (2001). The role of the first language in second language
reading. SSLA, 23, 469-495.
Van Duzer, C. (1999). Reading and the Adult English Language Learner. ERIC Digest.
Washington, D.C.: National Center for ESL Literacy Education. Retrieved
November 10, 2007 from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pric/is_199908/ai_1300289934.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Watkins, M. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis. (computer software).
Weinstein,C. , Husman, J. and Dierking, D. (2000). Self-regulation interventions with a
focus on learning strategies. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner
(Eds), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.
Weir, C., & Urquhart S. (1998). Reading in a second language: Process, product and
practice. UK: Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
Winne, P. and Perry, N.(2000). Measuring self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts,
P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (eds), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Wu, W. (2002). Taiwanese junior high school students' metacognitive awareness in
reading Chinese and English. National Taiwan Normal University.
Yang, Y. (1996). Comparison of reading strategies in L1 and L2. Paper presented at the
Fifth International Symposium on English Teaching, Taipei.
Young, D., & Oxford, R. (1997). A gender-related analysis of strategies used to process
input in the native language and foreign language. Applied Language Learning,
146 8, 43-73.
Zeidner, M., Boekaerts M., and Pintrich P.(2000). Self-regulation: Directions and
challenges for future research. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner (eds),
Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B., & Schunk, D. (Eds.). (1989). Self-Regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Springer-Verlag.
147APPENDIX A: READING COMPREHENSION TEST
Directions: In this section, you will read two passages. Each passage is followed by a
number of questions about it. Choose the best answer: (A), (B), (C), or (D).
Answer all questions about the information in a passage on the basis of what is stated or
implied in that passage.
Passage 1 Rainforests circle the globe for twenty degrees of latitude on both sides of the equator. In that relatively narrow band of the planet, more than half of all the species of plants and animals in the world make their home. Several hundred different varieties of trees may grow in a single acre, and just one of those trees may be the habitat for more than ten thousand kinds of spiders, ants, and other insects. More species of amphibians, birds, insects, mammals, and reptiles live in rainforests than anywhere else on earth. Unfortunately, half of the world’s rainforests have already been destroyed. Scientists estimate that as many as fifty million acres are destroyed annually. In other words, every sixty seconds, one hundred acres of rainforests is being cleared. By the time you finish reading this passage, two hundred acres will have been destroyed! When this happens, constant rains erode the former forest floor, the thin layer of soil no longer supports plant life, and the ecology of the region is altered forever. Thousands of species of plants and animals are condemned to extinction and, since we aren’t able to predict the ramifications of this loss to a delicate global ecology, we don’t know what we may be doing to the future of the human species as well. 1. The word “relatively” in line 2 could best be replaced by (A) Temporarily (B) Typically (C) Comparatively (D) Extremely 2. According to the passage, more than half of all species of plants and animals (A) Live in twenty rainforests. (B) Live in several hundred different varieties of trees. (C) Live in areas where rainforest has been cleared. (D) Live in a forty-degree band of latitude. 3. What is the current rate of destruction? (A) One acre per minute. (B) One acre per second.
148 (C) One hundred acres per minute (D) Two hundred acres per hour. 4. What is the meaning of the word “just” in line 4? (A) Fairly (B) Only (C) Correctly (D) Precisely 5. What will NOT happen if the rainforest continues to be cleared? (A) The land will be eroded by the rains. (B) Many species of plants and animals that depend on the rainforest will become
extinct. (C) The future of the human species may be changed. (D) The rainforest will grow, but at a much slower rate. 6. The word “altered” in line 13 is closet in meaning to (A) Changed (B) Terminated (C) Harmed (D) Invaded 7. The word “this” in line 11 refers to (A) The destruction of the acres. (B) The reading of the passage. (C) The erosion of the forest floor (D) The constant rain. Passage 2
Human memory, formerly believed to be rather inefficient, is really more sophisticated than that of a computer. Researchers approaching the problem from a variety of points of view have all concluded that there is a great deal more stored in our minds than has been generally supposed. Dr. Wilder Penfield, a Canadian neurosurgeon, proved that by stimulating their brains electrically, he could elicit the total recall of specific events in his subjects’ lives. Even dreams and other minor events supposedly forgotten for many years suddenly emerged in detail.
The memory trace is the term for whatever is the internal representation of the specific information about the event stored in the memory. Assumed to have been made by structural changes in the brain, the memory trace is not subject to direct observation but is rather a theoretical construct that we use to speculate about how information presented at a particular time can cause performance at a later time. Most theories include the strength of the memory trace as a variable in the degree of learning, retention, and retrieval possible for a memory. One theory is that the fantastic capacity for storage in the brain is the result of an almost unlimited combination of interconnections between brain
149cells, stimulated by patterns of activity. Repeated references to the same information support recall. To say that another way, improved performance is the result of strengthening the chemical bonds in the memory. 1. With what topic is the passage mainly concerned? (A) Wilder Penfield (B) Neurosurgery (C) Human memory (D) Chemical reactions 2. The word “formerly” in line1 could best be replaced by (A) In the past (B) From time to time (C) In general (D) By chance 3. Compared with a computer, human memory is (A) More complex (B) More limited (C) Less dependable (D) Less durable 4. The word “that” in line 2 refers to (A) The computer (B) The efficiency (C) The sophistication (D) The memory 5. According to the passage, researchers have concluded that (A) The mind has a much greater capacity for memory than was previously believed. (B) The physical basis for memory is clear. (C) Different points of view are valuable. (D) Human memory is inefficient. 6. According to the passage, the capacity for storage in the brain (A) Can be understood by examining the physiology. (B) Is stimulated by patterns of activity. (C) Has a limited combination of relationships. (D) Is not influenced by repetition. 7. All of the following are true of a memory trace EXCEPT that (A) It is probably made by structural changes in the brain. (B) It is able to be observed. (C) It is a theoretical construct. (D) It is related to the degree of recall.
150APPENDIX B: MODEL ANSWERS
Passage 1
1. C 2. D 3. C 4. B 5. D 6. A 7. A
Passage 2
1. C 2. A 3. A 4. D 5. A 6. B 7. B
151APPENDIX C : A SAMPLE OF INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTION
Name:…………. Institution: King Abdul-Aziz University Academic level: sophomore Time: 5 p.m. Date: Nov. 20, 2008 Place: King Abdul-Aziz University ………………………………………………………………………………………………
Interviewer: ……….., suppose that you have a reading task (a book, a chapter of a book,
etc.) after which someone will examine your comprehension (understanding) of the
materials you have read. I want you to tell me all what you will do since you decide that
it is time to start reading, until you feel ready for your discussion.
Interviewee: Usually When I get any chapter or book, first it depends on the topic. If the
topic is familiar to me or if it is in my specialty, I find it easy and love to read it. But if the
reading is not interesting, I find it boring! So, usually I read the title first and I try to
know what does the title mean I discuss the title sometimes with my friends to guide me to
the main idea, so after that I start having time, or I start reading the chapter page by,
overview First I will overview all the chapter page by page by quick reading. The second
I will start reading but it is slower than the first reading, it will be specific reading like
scanning, … yeah I will start reading slowly and see the info. Sometimes I stop with some
voc. because. I don’t know what does it mean but I try to know the meaning from context
of sentence it will help me sometimes to read it twice or third times to know what does
this word mean. I give myself a lot of time to read it. Until I finish the reading like to
discuss it with a lot of people all the people who I think they r intelligent or familiar with
the topic everybody to know their reflection. I get their ideas and write them down in my
notebook after that I try to be ready to discuss the book with my professor in my class or
with anyone..I try to compare their understood with my understood. It is good because I
prefer discussing with others to get the information deeper in mind not just memorizing
and coping and pasting it. . Sometimes I read carefully or for specific information.
Sometimes, I take much time on reading one or two pages, I try to read carefully so I do
not go to other page if I do not understand the first. Also, sometimes I don’t read some
152chapter if it is not related to my major but if I have to read or I have discussion in it I
will read I t and understand it and be familiar with everything t… I think that’s my way
Sometimes I try to summery the article in one page or two page. This is will help me in
my discussion; this is first idea, second idea, etc. t focus It help me so much in my
discussion and improve my reading… Next time when I read the same book or article I
try to read my note and summaries. Thank you. That’s it
………………………………….. End of interviewee talking freely………………… Interviewer: While you are reading, do you have some techniques to control your concentration and check your comprehension? Usually when I’m reading something and I finish reading, sometimes I understand the first part and try to understand the second part, I confuse the first part. Usually I will be skipped to the third part and then go back to the second part, Sometimes when I read I prefer to study alone. this is my way in my whole life because with ether people its distraction. I prefer to study reading alone. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Interviewer : So the environment plays a role in your comprehension? yes Interviewer: Ok! how about factors. Do you feel bored while you are reading? Do you have ways of controlling these feelings? Usually my feelings or my sympathy does not impact on my reading because I know I have to read this, I don’t care about my living . I leave all things away . It does not impact on my education or reading because either y studying or nothing. But sometimes when people sit next to me its distraction. ………………………………………………………………………………………………… Interviewer: From your answer, it’s clear that u use some techniques before reading and some others while reading: Do u have some other specific things u do while reading Usually I am using my pen to underline some voc and sentences I would like to memorize usually I like I said I’m using my pen, eyes because in Arabic language usually we read from right to left in English it’s from left to right so I have to be familiar sometimes I use some snacks, drink juice yeah like this. Interviewer : How about other factors that help you increase your original goal commitment, do you have a kind of control on them? No! Only environment impacts me more. Interviewer How about factors that control your mood, your self-encouragement: are you aware of them? Do you have such kinds of techniques to control and use these factors? I think that my mood is OK since I read any book because if I have no good mood I will not read. But I don’t think of my mood when I read because I ask myself either I read or nothing. ………………………………………………………………………………………………
153Second Main Question
Interviewer : From your own point of view, Which ones of the techniques you use : before reading, while reading or after reading have great effect on your comprehension? I think the most impact….. The most impact is environment. I like to be in a nice place and the people around and in front you . And also the design of table if u sit in rest table chair it will fit my article ... Because sometimes I have quite area and it should be I have to have a lot of time to read and sometimes family issues is distraction if I have appointments. Interviewer :let me clarify this: so do u say that what you do before reading affects your comprehension? In other words, is it the environment or other things u do while reading that have great effects on your comprehension? I think the best impact on me is the language because during my reading the language sometimes because the last article was about case court or court case sorry because I am not familiar with the court and this is article is not related to me some times the language impact on me and also environment I put cell phone in silent mode to not distraction on. Yeah Interviewer : So what you do during reading OR what you do before reading have great effect on your comprehension? No, what I do during reading first, then the environment ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Interviewer : OK! How about after you finish reading, do you have certain rituals or techniques to do ? Yes! Sometimes I make summaries and outlines. I use these summaries and outlines to go back to the chapter or the book next time. So I don’t have to read it again. I also ask some questions that I did not understand from my reading. I try to ask myself what else this book did not answer. Yeah ..so I can expand my learning and look for other books in my area. Interviewer : Did you learn all these techniques in school ? I think the methods that I use it when I read books because I was familiar with this b4 I did not get new way just a new way to read from left to write. Usually in Arabic I do the same. Interviewer : Do you use the internet to help you in your reading? NO, because I think the internet will waste my time. It is difficult. Usually when I read a book, I ask myself I’m the first person who read this book. ……………………………………………………………………………………………… Color Guide Green: Before reading strategies Orange: While reading strategies Dark Blue: After reading strategies Red: lack of extensive reading Olive Green: environment Purple: Prior knowledge
154Note
• Other direct questions were analyzed according to the specific answers the student gave for each question. There were no need to highlight these answers since they were very specific.
• When transcribing the interview, the researcher sometimes avoided transcribing some of the fillers such as ‘ah’, ‘umm’, ‘Like’, etc. Other than that, the researcher transcribed the interview exactly as it was (the reader might notice a lot of grammatical mistakes in the interviewee speech).
155APPENDIX D : READING STRATEGIES QUESTIONNAIRE (RSQ)
Dear Saudi EFL student,
I am a doctoral student at Ohio University in the United States of America
pursuing a degree in Reading and Language Arts. In partial fulfillment of the
requirements of the degree Doctor of Philosophy of Education, I am conducting a study
investigating the relationship between Saudi college-level students' use of reading
strategies, their self-regulatory capacity, and their reading comprehension achievement in
English as a foreign language. I would like to ask for your assistance in my study by
taking the following reading test and filling out the questionnaire. The information
obtained from this study is of vital interest and importance to educators and students and
the teaching of English as a foreign language.
I appreciate your taking some of your valuable time to take the test and fill out the
questionnaire, which will take 40-45 minutes to complete. Your responses will not be
traced to you, and will remain completely confidential.
Tick (√ ) 1 if you STRONGLY AGREE with the statement.
Tick (√ ) 2 if you AGREE with the statement.
Tick (√ ) 3 if you PARTLY AGREE with the statement.
Tick (√ ) 4 if you SLIGHTLY DISAGREE with the statement.
Tick (√ ) 5 if you DISAGREE with the statement.
Tick (√ ) 6 if you STRONGLY DISAGREE with the statement.
156
STATEMENTS 6 5 4 3 2 1 SA A PA SLDA DA SDA
Before reading a text in English, I have
special techniques to achieve my goals.
Before I start reading, I believe I can
overcome all comprehension difficulties.
Before I start reading, I try to find a
suitable environment.
Before I start reading, I have special
techniques to guess what the text will be
about.
Before I start reading, I know how to
arrange the environment to make reading
more enjoyable.
I prefer to know what the text is about
before I start reading it.
While reading a text in English, I have
special techniques to keep my
concentration focused.
While reading a text in English, I think
157
my methods of controlling my
concentration are effective.
While reading a text in English, I have
special techniques to prevent
procrastination (delay of the task).
I believe my methods of controlling
procrastination are effective.
When I feel stressed about reading, I
know how to reduce this stress.
During reading, I feel satisfied with the
ways I eliminate boredom.
While reading a text in English, I persist
until I reach the goals that I make for
myself.
While reading a text in English, I never
give up even when I feel stressed about
the topic.
While I am reading a text in English and I
feel stressed about the topic, I cope with
this problem immediately.
When feeling bored with the topic while
158
reading, I know how to regulate my mood
in order to invigorate (stimulate) the
process.
While I am reading a text in English, I
have special techniques to engage with
the text.
While I am reading, I have ways of
judging how beneficial the new
information is.
After I finished reading, I feel satisfied
with the methods I have used to reduce
stress.
After finishing reading, I feel satisfied
about my comprehension of the text.
After finishing reading, I can tell whether
I comprehended the text or not.
After finishing reading, I can easily judge
the consistency of the new information.
After finishing reading, I have special
techniques to evaluate new learning.
After finishing reading, I have special
159
techniques to modify new learning.
After finishing reading, I know how to
check whether my reading strategies were
effective.
After finishing reading, I am able to
discuss what I have learned from the
reading with other people.
After finishing reading, I believe that I
know how to link new learning with my
existing knowledge.
After finishing reading, I believe that I
can use new information to improve
different aspects of my life (career,
academic, etc.).
I like to have a purpose in mind before I
start reading.
When I am reading and the learning
environment becomes unsuitable, I try to
sort out the problem.
While I am reading, I am confident that I
can overcome any sense of boredom.
Once the pleasure of reading is gone, I
160
easily become impatient with it.
When I feel uncertain of my
comprehension, I simply give up reading.
I look for good environment before I start
reading.
Academic Level:
Age:
Gender:
Your participation is greatly appreciated.
Hashem A. Alsamadani
Ohio University
161
APPENDIX E : A SAMPLE OF PERMISSION REQUEST LETTER
Dear English Department Chair at……….,
I am a doctoral student in Reading and Language Arts program at the College of Education, Ohio University. Currently, I am working on my dissertation, which is on “The Relationship between Saudi EFL College-level Students’ Use of Reading Strategies and their EFL Reading Comprehension. Therefore, I need to collect data using Saudi EFL college-level students.
I am writing this letter to ask for permission to use English Department students as subjects for my study. I do appreciate your help in my effort to fulfill my degree requirements.
Sincerely,
Hashem Ahmed Alsamadani
Ohio University
Athens, OH
Email: [email protected] 740-594419
162
APPENDIX F : IRB APPROVAL
163
APPENDIX G : Screeplot
164
APPENDIX H: ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component 1 2 3 4
Q025_E .717
Q023_E .700
Q024_E .665
Q022_E .647
Q026_E .629
Q020_E .603
Q018_A .499 .411
Q017_A .484 .430
Q027_E .474
Q015_A
Q028_E
Q02_P
Q016_A .436 .609
Q011_A .602
Q05_P .598 .435
Q012_A .587
Q019_E .482 .573
Q08_A .572
Q09_A .538
Q010_A .537
Q013_A .528
Q07_A .498 .473
Q01_P .489
Q014_A
Q03_P .623
Q029_P .600
Q04_P .529
165 Q06_P .479
Q021_E
RQ033_A .745
Q034_A .650
Q031_A .609
Q030_P .571
RQ032_A .497
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.
166
APPENDIX I : RESIDUAL STATISTICS (READING STRATEGIES TYPES)
Residuals Statistics(a)
Min. Max. M Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 7.46 9.27 8.53 .319 140
Std. Predicted Value -3.35 2.33 .000 1.000 140
Standard Error of .235 .937 .424 .134 140 Predicted Value
Adjusted Predicted Value 6.80 9.47 8.52 .348 140
Residual -6.535 5.286 .000 2.604 140
Std. Residual -2.482 2.008 .000 .989 140
Stud. Residual -2.536 2.039 .002 1.006 140
Deleted Residual -6.820 5.617 .013 2.696 140
Stud. Deleted Residual -2.588 2.063 .001 1.013 140
Mahal. Distance .116 16.610 2.979 2.807 140
Cook’s Distance .000 .141 .009 .020 140
Centered Leverage Value .001 .119 .021 .020 140 a Dependent Variable: CS
167
APPENDIX J : ITEMS DESCRIPTIVES
Means and Standard Deviations of Items (descending)
Items M SD Before reading a text in English, I have special techniques to achieve my goals. (P*) 5.07 .902 Before I start reading, I try to find a suitable environment. (P*) 4.96 1.19
After finishing reading, I believe that I can use new information to improve different aspects of my life (career, academic, etc.). (A*) 4.91 1.08
After finishing reading, I can tell whether I comprehended the text or not. (E*) 4.82 1.00
Before I start reading, I have special techniques to guess what the text will be about. (P*) 4.80 1.27
I prefer to know what the text is about before I start reading it. (P*) 4.78 1.36 After finishing reading, I am able to discuss what I have learned from the reading with other people. (A*) 4.75 1.15
I believe that I know how to link new learning with my existing knowledge. (A*) 4.70 1.09
I like to have a purpose in mind before I read. (A*) 4.69 1.31
When I am reading and the learning environment
becomes unsuitable, I try to sort out the problem. (A*) 4.67 1.36 After finishing reading, I feel satisfied about my comprehension of the text. (A*) 4.67 1.36
While I am reading, I am confident that I can
overcome any sense of boredom. (A*) 4.65 1.18 After finishing reading, I can easily judge the consistency of the new information. (A*) 4.58 .981
After finishing reading, I know how to check
168
whether my reading strategies were effective. (E*) 4.54 1.08
While I am reading, I have ways of judging how beneficial the new information is. (P*) 4.53 1.18 I never give up even when I feel stressed about the topic. (A*) 4.52 1.12
While reading a text in English, I have special techniques to keep my concentration focused. (A*) 4.52 1.12 After I finished reading, I feel satisfied with the methods I have used to reduce stress. (P*) 4.50 1.26
Before I start reading, I know how to arrange the environment to make reading more enjoyable. (P*) 4.47 1.21 While reading a text in English, I think my methods of controlling my concentration are effective. (A*) 4.40 1.10 While I am reading a text in English, I have special techniques to engage with the text. (E*) 4.40 1.10 Before I start reading, I believe I can overcome all comprehension difficulties. (P*) 4.34 1.15 While reading a text in English, I have special techniques to prevent procrastination (delay of the task). (P*) 4.34 1.15 While reading a text in English, I persist until I reach the goals that I make for myself. (E*) 4.34 1.15 After finishing reading, I have special techniques to evaluate new learning. (P*) 4.32 1.19
When I feel uncertain of my comprehension, I simply give up reading. (A*) 4.32 1.19 When I feel stressed about reading, I know how to reduce this stress. (A*) 4.27 1.12 While I am reading a text in English, I have special techniques to engage with the text. 4.27 1.12 After finishing reading, I have special techniques to modify new learning. (E*) 4.27 1.12
169 During reading, I feel satisfied with the ways I eliminate boredom. (E*) 4.19 1.21 When I feel stressed about the topic, I cope with this problem immediately. (A*) 4.10 1.36 Once the pleasure of reading is gone, I easily
become impatient with it. (A*) 4.09 1.37 When feeling bored with the topic, I know how to regulate my mood in order to invigorate (stimulate) the process. (A*) 4.01 1.28 I believe my methods of controlling procrastination are effective. (P*) 3.95 1.23 I look for good environment before I start reading. (A*) 3.62 1.55 P*: Planning Strategies A*: Attending Strategies E*: Evaluating Strategies
170 APPENDIX K : SCATTER PLOT OF REGRESSION STANDARDIZED PREDICTED
VALUES AGAINST REGRESSION STANDARDIZED RESIDUALS (SELF-
REGULATION FACETS) .
3210-1-2-3
Regression Standardized Predicted Value
2.5
0.0
-2.5
Reg
ress
ion
Stan
dard
ized
Res
idua
l
Scatterplot
Dependent Variable: CG
171
APPENDIX L : NORMAL P-P PLOT (SELF-REGULATION FACETS).
1.00.80.60.40.20.0
Observed Cum Prob
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Expe
cted
Cum
Pro
b
Normal P-P Plot of Regression Standardized Residual
Dependent Variable: CG
172
APPENDIX M : RESIDUAL STATISTICS (SELF-REULATION FACETS)
Residuals Statistics(a) Min. Max. M Std. Deviation N Predicted Value 7.02 10.07 8.53 .532 140 Std. Predicted Value -2.843 2.895 .000 1.000 140 Standard Error of .241 1.133 .522 .144 140 Predicted Value Adjusted Predicted Value 5.87 10.17 8.52 .568 140 Residual -6.608 5.817 .000 2.569 140 Std. Residual -2.525 2.223 .000 .982 140 Stud. Residual -2.588 2.265 .001 1.007 140 Deleted Residual -6.940 6.132 .006 2.703 140 Stud. Deleted Residual -2.645 2.301 .001 1.014 140 Mahal. Distance .185 25.063 4.964 3.523 140 Cook’s Distance .000 .172 .009 .018 140 Centered Leverage Value .001 .180 .036 .025 140 a Dependent Variable: CS
173
APPENDIX N : TOLERANCE AND VIF FOR REGRESSION FACTORS (SELF-
REGULATION)
______________________________________________
Model Tolerance VIF
______________________________________________
Environmental Control .82 1.20
Commitment Control .51 1.93
Satiation Control .50 1.97
Metacognitive Control .57 1.74
Emotional Control .45 2.22
_____________________________________________